How could the 13" be neglected?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Dwalls90, Apr 13, 2010.

  1. Dwalls90 macrumors 601

    Dwalls90

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    #1
    The 320M is hardly an improvement given the rest of the system still sucks. The boost from 2.26->2.4ghz is laughable... When will we see at LEAST i3 in the 13"? Maybe before the school new school year?
     
  2. Disc Golfer macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #2
    Yeah they're totally gonna bump the line twice in a single year. :rolleyes:
     
  3. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #3
    If you'd read other threads instead of creating a redundant one, you would know, that due to the dispute between Intel and Nvidia, Nvidia can't make chipsets for the i-Core CPUs, thus if you want an i3 in your MBP you would be stuck with the Intel HD Graphics chipset, which is worse than the previous 9400M.
    So Apple had to compromise, either the better graphics card and a faster CPU, or a faster CPU and a worse GPU than before, as a dedicated GPU in the 13" MBP is still not feasible for Apple.
     
  4. kny3twalker macrumors 65816

    kny3twalker

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    #4

    this is a bad move though on their part, because what will they do in the future? Intel is going to continue to bundle the chipset and controllers in the cpu.
    Apple would have been better off with integrated graphics and using the fastest i3 in the base 13" macbook pro and the slowest i5 in the upgraded 13". This would have given them room to put the slower i3 in the macbook.
     
  5. gfiz macrumors 6502

    gfiz

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Location:
    Virginia
    #5

    to be honest, with the paltry resolution they offer on the 13", the intel integrated graphics would have been fine. Either way, you're not playing graphic intensive games with either solution, and at least with the Intel integrated graphics, you'd have a cpu that wasn't introduced 4 years ago.
     
  6. mschaef macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    #6
    Simple: There's not enough money in the price point to pay for more that what they've already done.
     
  7. Hmac macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    #7
    It never ceases to amaze me how Apple can be so dense as to not be able to understand computer marketing and engineering as clearly as MacRumors posters.
     
  8. SOLLERBOY macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    The specs are now similar to my late 2008 unibody alu macbook.
     
  9. The Final Cut macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #9
    its a 13" laptop you cant except a higher res screen (and probably would not actually want one). as for the processor, come on, what the heck are you possible doing on a small laptop that would require more horsepower, how many apps are you running on that tiny screen? if you are a professinal than you know you must spend 2-3x as much and get the mac pro or 17" macbook pro for the best performance. that cpu is fine even for gaming. of course I wish the graphics card was a little bit more powerful, but I understand its not possible at this point.
     
  10. kasakka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #10
    I disagree. You're forgetting that you can also use external monitors with the MBP and even the 9400M starts to struggle a bit as you get to higher resolutions. My previous gen 13" MBP is a tiny bit sluggish (not as smooth Expose etc) with a 2560x1600 resolution display and I imagine the Intel graphics chip would do a lot worse.

    As for the CPU, I don't think the i3 would be significantly faster. In most applications the difference would be negligible.
     

Share This Page