If 13"'is updated but keeps C2D...

[ref26]

I didn't know that changing the RAM or SSD/HDD on the MBP voids the warranty. My current MB even came with instructions from Apple about how to do it, and it said nothing about warranties.

However, I might have to choose between 13" MBA and 15" MBP at next upgrade anyway - unless the next 13" MBP comes with minimum i3 CPU, 1440x display and keeping all other specs equal to or better than the 2010 model. Most likely I will end up with a 15" MBP then, because I do want backlit keyboard when buying expensive computer from Apple. Besides, I intend to keep the computer for 3-5 years, so I shouldn't buy it with a 5 years old processor such as the C2D.

Apple classifies RAM and HDD as user replaceable components and doing so does not affect your warranty. The above poster is misinformed.

 

[leetlamer]

There's so much misinformation and ignorance in this thread its laughable.

And the integrated graphics on Sandy Bridge is a lot slower than the 320M on the MBP (the numbers that are floating around showing it close to the 320M are for the integrated graphics in the high end desktop chips that won't go into an MBP).

Completely false.

http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Intel-Sandy-Bridge-Review-Core-i7-2600K-and-Core-i5-2500K-4.jpg/

All of the Sandy Bridge mobile CPUs feature the high-end graphics. In fact, only the really high-end desktop CPUs have the graphics that the mobile ones do. Some cheaper desktop parts feature a GPU core with fewer units.

All the people saying that the C2D is fine, and won't be updated are missing the point. Sure, the C2D might have pretty good performance, but Sandy Bridge is irrefutably better. It has better performance per watt, overall performance, and better overall power usage. If Apple were to opt not to use a discrete graphics card in the 13" model, both power usage and physical space needed would dramatically decrease.

By using Sandy Bridge, Apple would simultaneously reduce physical space used by the processor and chipset (allowing for more battery), improve CPU performance, offer equivalent GPU performance, and lower power consumption.

Sure, Apple could stick with the C2D (despite the fact that the C2D is approaching EOL and nVidia is leaving the chipset business), but considering the overwhelming benefits, there is no reason for Apple to do so. Arrandale didn't offer compelling enough graphics, which is why Apple didn't choose to use it in the 13" model. But this time it is different.

I will gladly take Core 2 DUO with Nvidia chip instead of intel integrated graphic's card. Intel cannot make graphics card, period. They suck. !

Just because Intel had poorly performing integrated graphics in the past doesn't mean Intel will never be able to do so.

If you were less ignorant and actually looked at benchmarks you'd see that Intel's Sandy Bridge graphics are far from terrible.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/01/27/intel-hd-graphics-3000-performance-review/1

 

[vistadude]

Agreed there is so much misinformation in this thread. However, Intel has performed quite poorly in laptop graphics the past 5 years, and they also have a history of not updating drivers regularly like ATI and nVidia does. Your article for Sandy bridge is for desktops, i think. Hopefully intel gets laptop graphics and laptop chipsets right.

There's so much misinformation and ignorance in this thread its laughable.



Completely false.

http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Intel-Sandy-Bridge-Review-Core-i7-2600K-and-Core-i5-2500K-4.jpg/

All of the Sandy Bridge mobile CPUs feature the high-end graphics. In fact, only the really high-end desktop CPUs have the graphics that the mobile ones do. Some cheaper desktop parts feature a GPU core with fewer units.

All the people saying that the C2D is fine, and won't be updated are missing the point. Sure, the C2D might have pretty good performance, but Sandy Bridge is irrefutably better. It has better performance per watt, overall performance, and better overall power usage. If Apple were to opt not to use a discrete graphics card in the 13" model, both power usage and physical space needed would dramatically decrease.

By using Sandy Bridge, Apple would simultaneously reduce physical space used by the processor and chipset (allowing for more battery), improve CPU performance, offer equivalent GPU performance, and lower power consumption.

Sure, Apple could stick with the C2D (despite the fact that the C2D is approaching EOL and nVidia is leaving the chipset business), but considering the overwhelming benefits, there is no reason for Apple to do so. Arrandale didn't offer compelling enough graphics, which is why Apple didn't choose to use it in the 13" model. But this time it is different.



Just because Intel had poorly performing integrated graphics in the past doesn't mean Intel will never be able to do so.

If you were less ignorant and actually looked at benchmarks you'd see that Intel's Sandy Bridge graphics are far from terrible.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/01/27/intel-hd-graphics-3000-performance-review/1

 

[leetlamer]

Agreed there is so much misinformation in this thread. However, Intel has performed quite poorly in laptop graphics the past 5 years, and they also have a history of not updating drivers regularly like ATI and nVidia does. Your article for Sandy bridge is for desktops, i think. Hopefully intel gets laptop graphics and laptop chipsets right.

Did you even read my post? All of the Sandy Bridge mobile CPUs feature Intel HD 3000 graphics, the exact same GPU being reviewed.

Intel not having a history of updating drivers? Are you serious? Try Apple not updating drivers. Why does Mac OS X get worse OpenGL performance than Windows on the exact same hardware? This is across the board. OS X has terrible OpenGL support and GPU driver updates are very infrequent.

 

[vistadude]

Yes I read your post. While it's true they use HD 3000 graphics, the article tested the desktop version of those processors, which is likely more powerful from the laptop versions. On top of that, they used 650 Watt power supplies, Solid state hard drives, and at least 3.3 Ghz processors, all of which are unrealistic for 13 inch laptops... and they only got about 30 frames per second in those games, which is pretty embarrassing for those specs. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/01/27/intel-hd-graphics-3000-performance-review/4

About the drivers comments, you're right that apple doesn't update its drivers much, but most of them work okay on the first version. I meant that intel doesn't updates its graphics drivers as much as nVidia updates its graphics drivers. nVidia updates its drivers for specific games, something intel would never do.

Did you even read my post? All of the Sandy Bridge mobile CPUs feature Intel HD 3000 graphics, the exact same GPU being reviewed.

Intel not having a history of updating drivers? Are you serious? Try Apple not updating drivers. Why does Mac OS X get worse OpenGL performance than Windows on the exact same hardware? This is across the board. OS X has terrible OpenGL support and GPU driver updates are very infrequent.

 

[kutsushita]

They'll keep it the same but the MBP will have Mr. Jobs' signature on the lid with a smilie.

cool, how much extra will that cost though? i'm pushing my budget on 1,200 as is.

 

[NickZac]

I am confident that this time next year everyone will be saying: "if the next MBP uses that crappy Sandy Bridge again, I'll just buy a calculator"

 

[gonnabuyamacbsh]

if the 13" keeps c2d I'll take my business else where.

 

[Yebubbleman]

If the 13" is updated, but keeps Core 2 Duo as it's CPU, what numbers do you think we'll see? What comes next after 2.66 that meets the wattage and other limits of the 13"? Would a 2.8 work in there?

I'm pretty convinced that the 13" MacBook Pro is dead in the water. Whether the "Pro" moniker is simply dropped and we have the return of the Aluminum MacBook or whether it's just dropped altogether and some of its features come to (or are restored to) the white MacBook, I don't know.

But regarding your question, if I had to guess, if they were still using Core 2 Duo, I'd say that we'd probably see 2.53GHz at the low end (and on the white MacBook) and 2.8GHz at the high end.

 

[torbjoern]

I am confident that this time next year everyone will be saying: "if the next MBP uses that crappy Sandy Bridge again, I'll just buy a calculator"

In one year, Sandy Bridge will be 1 year old. Right now, C2D is 5 years old. And I'm going to keep my next Mac for 3-5 years. You get my drift? If I were to have it only for a year anyway (or if I could upgrade the CPU myself), C2D would be perfectly fine for that one more year.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Otherwise...

It's not too old for the MacBook Air. Even the crappy low-speed ones they put in 'em.

Said crappy low-speed ones (unless you're referring to the ones in the 11") even outperform the CPUs in the 13" Pro, and even with the SSD boost, they were still surprisingly capable.

The 13" won't keep the C2D.

And you're sure of this, how?

I could have my hands on a 13" MacBook Pro (my first ever Mac, long time PC user) next thursday - I really don't want to wait.

Buy it refurbished and it's only a grand.

I'm confident the graphics on the next 13" MBP will not be slower than the graphics on the current one. And the integrated graphics on Sandy Bridge is a lot slower than the 320M on the MBP (the numbers that are floating around showing it close to the 320M are for the integrated graphics in the high end desktop chips that won't go into an MBP).

So do you think Apple will go with discrete graphics, which is more expensive, takes more power, takes more space (less space for battery) because some guys on MacRumors will be pissed off otherwise? C2D is plenty fast enough. Sandy Bridge integrated graphics isn't.

Sadly, I have to agree with this.

Then I will buy the 15 base model....

I'm thinking in byuing the 15 anyway, even though I love the 13...

That's how I feel and am doing the exact same thing even though the 13" is my favorite.

I actually know jobs and cook personally. We have sleepovers and pillow fights all the time. So yes, they do care what this guy on macrumors thinks.

+1

Apple wants nVidia integrated graphics on it's 13 inch notebooks, for better battery life and reasonable graphics for non-gaming apps. nVidia did not pay for the license for newer chipsets beyond core 2 duo, so it could never produce a chipset for the core i series of processors with its own integrated graphics. nVidia could only add a discrete graphics chip on top of intel integrated graphics, which is what the larger macbook pro's have.

So the question is, is nVidia licensed to make integrated graphics for Sandy Bridge? Then only apple can make the 13 inch macbooks with good battery life and good performance. On the other hand, apple could use intel integrated graphics chipsets, but so far Intel hasn't made anything good that balances performance with battery life.

It's not that NVIDIA didn't pay the license as much as it was Intel preventing them from paying the license; they effectively shut them out.

This is one reason why I hope the ODD goes out of the MBP 13".

If they made it thicker, they wouldn't need to take the ODD out. Besides if it's their best seller as everyone says, there's far more of a chance that there'll be an outcry that the ODD is gone.

Maybe 2.66 would be the base since its likely the worst seller in the current line.

Really?

I think, if Apple uses an old chip it will be the last gen iX series.

Why would they use a less power-efficient (and therefore thermally efficient) CPU than the newest, which is far better about that sort of thing anyway?

There's so much misinformation and ignorance in this thread its laughable.



Completely false.

http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Intel-Sandy-Bridge-Review-Core-i7-2600K-and-Core-i5-2500K-4.jpg/

All of the Sandy Bridge mobile CPUs feature the high-end graphics. In fact, only the really high-end desktop CPUs have the graphics that the mobile ones do. Some cheaper desktop parts feature a GPU core with fewer units.

All the people saying that the C2D is fine, and won't be updated are missing the point. Sure, the C2D might have pretty good performance, but Sandy Bridge is irrefutably better. It has better performance per watt, overall performance, and better overall power usage. If Apple were to opt not to use a discrete graphics card in the 13" model, both power usage and physical space needed would dramatically decrease.

By using Sandy Bridge, Apple would simultaneously reduce physical space used by the processor and chipset (allowing for more battery), improve CPU performance, offer equivalent GPU performance, and lower power consumption.

Sure, Apple could stick with the C2D (despite the fact that the C2D is approaching EOL and nVidia is leaving the chipset business), but considering the overwhelming benefits, there is no reason for Apple to do so. Arrandale didn't offer compelling enough graphics, which is why Apple didn't choose to use it in the 13" model. But this time it is different.



Just because Intel had poorly performing integrated graphics in the past doesn't mean Intel will never be able to do so.

If you were less ignorant and actually looked at benchmarks you'd see that Intel's Sandy Bridge graphics are far from terrible.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/01/27/intel-hd-graphics-3000-performance-review/1

They still don't beat the 320M or support OpenCL. I think it's for that reason that you might be wrong on that one.

In one year, Sandy Bridge will be 1 year old. Right now, C2D is 5 years old. And I'm going to keep my next Mac for 3-5 years. You get my drift? If I were to have it only for a year anyway (or if I could upgrade the CPU myself), C2D would be perfectly fine for that one more year.

You can't really lump all of "Core 2 Duo" into a single processor family just like you can't lump Arrandale and Sandy Bridge in the same processor family. There's a difference between Merom, the Core 2 Duo of almost five years ago, and Penryn, the Core 2 Duo chips as far back as January 2008. Sure, three years is getting pretty old when they're refreshed almost as often as MacBook Pros are announced, but still, they are not THAT old.

 

[gianly1985]

Apple would have had to stockpile them.

Intel will stop shipping core2duo CPUs after October 2011, so no need to stockpile until then. There could be a minor update (say, 1440x display) now and a major redesign this fall. (3 years since the last big redesign)

If that's not the case and they skip sandy bridge in 13-inchers, after october 2011 we're looking at 3-4 months before WIDE avaibility of Ivy bridge. Let's say a quarter. Apple sells 4 million Macs a quarter, lets assume half of those are core2duo-equipped (MBPs 13", MBs, MBAs, MINIs), they'd need to stockpile 2 million CPUs in the next few months.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Intel will stop shipping core2duo CPUs after October 2011, so no need to stockpile until then. There could be a minor update (say, 1440x display) now and a major redesign this fall. (3 years since the last big redesign)

If that's not the case and they skip sandy bridge in 13-inchers, after october 2011 we're looking at 3-4 months before WIDE avaibility of Ivy bridge. Let's say a quarter. Apple sells 4 million Macs a quarter, lets assume half of those are core2duo-equipped (MBPs 13", MBs, MBAs, MINIs), they'd need to stockpile 2 million CPUs in the next few months.

It really just seems like so much of a lose-lose situation for the 13" Pro. Either option would be fine for the other three lines. Though I could picture Apple successfully stockpiling that many C2Ds.

 

[newdeal]

..

core2duo is fine. I really wouldn't care. With all the bitching people on this forum do about it not getting an i3 in the last update I was super excited to see just how much blazingly faster my i3 3.06 iMac would be than my old core2duo 2.26ghz macbook pro, surely with all the complaining it must be WAY faster...answer was though it isn't noticable at all except in benchmarks that the system is any faster. Sure people who use handbrake may notice a differance but then again if you are doing handbrake encodes etc all day you probobly aren't using a 13" pro and a i3 wouldn't be fast enough for you anyway!

 

[zodqyv]

It's not too old for the MacBook Air. Even the crappy low-speed ones they put in 'em.

That was in 2010. We're talking about 2011, here.

 

[orfeas0]

If 13 inch keep C2D, then I still wouldn't care because I will no longer buy 13 in ch MBP from this point on. 13 inch MBA is just as good as 13 in MBP in most cases. 15 inch MBP is a lot better choice in terms of performance.

wow, i'm amazed by the number of clueless people in here thinking the air is more powerful than the pro.
IT HAS 1,4GHZ as a minimum, while the pro has 2,4ghz min!!!
It's the SSD that makes the air faster, and if you add ssd to a MBP, it will be 10 times faster than the air! WAKE UP! the air is a netbook with an ssd (nah its a lot better but it cant be compared to the white macbook or the pro!!)

 

[zodqyv]

I presently have both the 2010 13" MacBook Pro and the 11" MacBook Air. If neither are updated beyond C2D/320M then I have no need to buy a new notebook in 2011.

If the MacBook Pro and MacBook Air are not updated, then surely the white MacBook and Mac mini will stay the same as well. I am in the market for neither, but just thought it would be worth mentioning.

I am good on Mac Pros for now, too. I don't plan to buy a new one before Haswell (2013 or later). That leaves only the iMac. I would buy at least one new 21" iMac if they offered it with an SSD option, Blu-ray, or both.

The point of this post was to point out that Apple will surely want to sell me, a compulsive Mac buyer, something. If there is no significant change to any of the 2010 lineup then why would I want to buy anything?

 

[skiltrip]

I'm pretty convinced that the 13" MacBook Pro is dead in the water. Whether the "Pro" moniker is simply dropped and we have the return of the Aluminum MacBook or whether it's just dropped altogether and some of its features come to (or are restored to) the white MacBook, I don't know.

But regarding your question, if I had to guess, if they were still using Core 2 Duo, I'd say that we'd probably see 2.53GHz at the low end (and on the white MacBook) and 2.8GHz at the high end.

If I had a prize to give, you'd get it. I believe you are the only one in two pages of this thread to actually answer the question I posed. Thank you.

To everyone else, of course it's very unlikely we'll see another round of C2D in the 13", but that wasnt the point. Now we have two MORE pages on MR with people bitching about how it won't happen, or they are taking their business elsewhere, or C2D is EOL etc etc. Lol.

 

[leetlamer]

They still don't beat the 320M or support OpenCL. I think it's for that reason that you might be wrong on that one.

Intel has stated OpenCL drivers are coming in 2011.

Yes I read your post. While it's true they use HD 3000 graphics, the article tested the desktop version of those processors, which is likely more powerful from the laptop versions. On top of that, they used 650 Watt power supplies, Solid state hard drives, and at least 3.3 Ghz processors, all of which are unrealistic for 13 inch laptops... and they only got about 30 frames per second in those games, which is pretty embarrassing for those specs.

SSDs and power supplies are irrelevant in FPS benchmarks. And while better CPU performance would affect FPS benchmarks, the effect it would have is quite minor. The performance bottleneck is undeniably the GPU, so reducing the CPU performance would have little effect on benchmarks.

You'll also find that Intel HD 3000 has higher 3DMark scores than the nVidia 320M

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-320M.28701.0.html

To say that Intel HD 3000 doesn't offer equivalent, if not better performance than the 320M is ignoring the facts.

 

[NickZac]

In one year, Sandy Bridge will be 1 year old. Right now, C2D is 5 years old. And I'm going to keep my next Mac for 3-5 years. You get my drift? If I were to have it only for a year anyway (or if I could upgrade the CPU myself), C2D would be perfectly fine for that one more year.

I hear ya and the C2D should have been updated last go, but historical trend has been the 'current' sucks donkey wiener, and the future will save humanity. Soon as we get SB, people will want Ivy Bridge, then Haswell, then Furutama, then Oddesseyum5000 and so forth. It's kind of like Charlie Sheen, adult film stars, and cocaine...you really can't ever get enough.

 

[MultiBat]

To begin with I am not sure Sandy Bridge will come to the 13" MBP in the (first) 2011 refresh. From what I have read in these forums Apple has no history of grabbing new types of CPUs at the first possible chance. So that makes this thread even more interesting.

I should also state that this is speculation and that I am a SW guy (developer) and not a HW guy. I could be wrong about alot, since HW is just a piece of equipment to me. The info below is from googling and wikipedia...

Intel is discontinuing the C2Ds, but they will be available for a pretty long time yet:
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2010/2010120703_Intel_discontinues_Core_2_mobile_CPUs.html

In the list in that link there a few more CPUs other than the P8600 and P8800. I do not know for sure, but I think those are the two currently used in the 13" MBPs.
The P9500 (2,4 GHz) and P9600 (2,53MHz) have a 25W TPD as the current CPUs. The difference with those are that they have a L2 cache of 6MB (instead of 3MB in the current CPUs).
I have no idea what benefits the 6MB L2 cache give (Told you I am a SW guy ). I have noted that the CPU in the 13" MBA has a 6MB L2 cache. Is that why it can be so close to the 13" MBP in benchmarking?
Finally we have the P9700 which is the 2,8GHz CPU. The thing is it has a 28W TDP. I don't know if that is impossible to use from a heat perspective.

On a side note the Sandy Bridge CPUs people say will be in the 13" MBP have a 35W TDP. I have no idea if that causes a need for redesign of the MBP to be able to handle that extra heat. Could that be covered by only having a CPU instead of a CPU+320m?

So a guess on a retained C2D refresh could be:
A)
* 2,66 GHz C2D CPU
* 2,8 GHz C2D CPU
B)
* 2,66 GHz C2D CPU
* 2,66 GHz C2D CPU - SSD instead of HDD.

Other than that I guess a resolution bump to the 1440x900 is likeley.

Just my two cents...

 

[torbjoern]

I don't really need 4 cores, so Arrandale will be enough for me - even though I intend to keep the computer for many years. Penryn, however, is 3-4 years old already.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I presently have both the 2010 13" MacBook Pro and the 11" MacBook Air. If neither are updated beyond C2D/320M then I have no need to buy a new notebook in 2011.

Even if they did, why would you NEED to buy a new notebook in 2011? It's not like Sandy Bridge is such a quantum leap over Penryn. Faster, sure. But to the point of selling your 2010 13" Pro and 11" Air? That's kinda ridiculous.

If I had a prize to give, you'd get it. I believe you are the only one in two pages of this thread to actually answer the question I posed. Thank you.

To everyone else, of course it's very unlikely we'll see another round of C2D in the 13", but that wasnt the point. Now we have two MORE pages on MR with people bitching about how it won't happen, or they are taking their business elsewhere, or C2D is EOL etc etc. Lol.

Hey man, I like those kinds of guessing games. Plus it takes a whole lot of the tension off of the "Here's what I think will happen to the 13" MacBook Pro and here's why you're wrong" game, which I'll admit, I'm both guilty and tired of playing.

 

[tekjunke]

It is so shame that people are only looking at one side of picture, but not looking at the other. Evil intel is not letting anyone else make chipset for Sandy Bridge, but themselves! Can intel make good graphic's card? No.

"Hello, Pot? This Is Kettle Calling"

I'm a long time Apple user, but seeing someone complain about another company being single minded, and developing their own closed systems... That's what you call irony on an APPLE forum! LOLOL

 

[spacetoaster]

I can't speak for everyone. I use my laptop for very little gaming and heavy duty work like typing and presentation. For me, as long as my computer is snappy then I am happy. I could care less about this Sandy Bridge and Core 2 DUO. Because Sandy Bridge doesn't have long to live as soon as IVY bridge comes end of this year. Tik tok tik tok. That's about 10 months left and MBPs are still not updated!

13 MBP is reaching it's limits at least for me. Obviously, there will be users who would want to upgrade HDD/SSD on their laptops, but you lose warranty. Because of this, I never ever mess up with apple or other companies laptop by upgrading the internals. I would gladly little more premium for it.

Another thing I don't like Sandy Bridge is the intel. Intel is stupid. They are not allowing Nvidia to develop chip for it. Instead, they are making their own.

It is so shame that people are only looking at one side of picture, but not looking at the other. Evil intel is not letting anyone else make chipset for Sandy Bridge, but themselves! Can intel make good graphic's card? No.

Open up your god damn eyes... people. CPU means nothing without good GPU. What are you planning on using computers for? Core 2 Duo is outdated? So what. Everything will get outdated so fast these days. I don't pay apple computers for performance in games. I buy them because they are well made and have excellent customer support. I can justify my purchase with those things alone. You think most of people would know immediately know what the heck is Core 2 DUO or sandy Bridge is? No.

I will gladly take Core 2 DUO with Nvidia chip instead of intel integrated graphic's card. Intel cannot make graphics card, period. They suck.

Sandy Bridge means nothing for me unless apple find a way to stick in ATI or Nvidia graphics card in with 13 MBP.

But, then again, I would not buy 13 MBP from now on. 13 MBA and 15 MBP all the wayYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

+1

It doesn't make sense for all those C2D users to upgrade just to get an i3 + Intel IGP. Just a waste of money. Apple should really remove the ODD and put a discrete GPU into the 13 inch, sony can do it, why can't apple?