Yes - there is always something new. That's the reason why I don't want to see a 3-4 years old processor in any new Mac from now on. Arrandale is tolerable for the 13", but there is no way I will pay for Penryn again.
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.
If 13"'is updated but keeps C2D...
- Thread starter skiltrip
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes - there is always something new. That's the reason why I don't want to see a 3-4 years old processor in any new Mac from now on. Arrandale is tolerable for the 13", but there is no way I will pay for Penryn again.
I think you're confusing pixels per inch with display resolution. If you had a retina display 13" screen, that'd be rad. But I don't think that's realistic. Hell, there's talk that even the iPad won't get a retina display.
I still wouldn't be shocked if during Sandy Bridge's reign, we were given one last helping of Core 2 Duo to hold us off until Ivy Bridge. Though at that point the 13" Pro will either have to be rebranded or dropped altogether, as Jobs will have to come up with a new terse response when people ask him why the 13" Pro has either the inferior CPU or the inferior IGP. "Killer graphics" can only get you so far with that thing before you can't call it a "Pro" with a straight face anymore.
The Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge IGPs, as well as the NVIDIA 320M if Apple goes that way, will not be powerful enough to support resolutions much above what is currently offered, let alone above 1080p, up to something that could be regarded as a "retina" display.
I do know the difference. Pixels per inch depends on resolution (e.g. 1680x1050 pixels) AND physical constraints (e.g. 13 inches on 16:10). Yes, what I want is a retina display for the MBP 13. When they have it on the iPhone, why not on a Mac?
See answer above.
Oh, and cost. It would be so hard to make, and the manufacturing failure rate would be high, so the pricing would be at an appropriate level. Or inappropriate level, depending on your viewpoint.
Basically, what you're saying is "If they can make a retina display for a phone, why can't they make it 10 times bigger?"
any possibilty apple goes with the dual core, four threads intel atom processors?? as they have virtual four cores, is the 1.8 ghz d425 more powerful than the 2.4ghz c2d? integrated nvidia graphics work with these.
i guess that would if at all be more of a move for the 11 inch air, if anything
i guess that would if at all be more of a move for the 11 inch air, if anything
Sure, but isn't the Core 2 Duo in the Air far better than the Atom of which you speak?
I dont know. benchmarks would show that I presume. But out the top of my head i would think it more powerful due to the 2 extra virtual cores.
The C2D in the Air is plenty fast for the things in life that count such as: Word Yo, Pictures and Porn, YouTube, stupid sites where you can tell the world every time you wipe yourself, looking cool and trendy, and all the other worthless things we do which for some reason we value.
No but really the 2GHz C2D Air w/ 4GB RAM and its flash memory kills the Atom based computers...I can say that from first hand experience. We love all of our MBAs...even the originals still work great and they aren't slow. Having a SSD makes a much bigger difference in some basic programs than a CPU upgrade. I would dare say most MBA users are doing the more basic tasks and want mobility over performance. A MBA is not going to be a i7 15/17 inch MBP ever; but I don't think many people have ever expected them to be. Capability and mobility are both important in laptops, and some users need more of one than the other. I know MANY disabled persons who have the MBA and they LOVE them as they don't have to settle for a pin-head keyboard, but despite their disability, they can carry them for long distances without discomfort.
The 13 MBA/MBP doesn't need to be super jedi fast...at least not until porn accepts 1280p. Now not having a powerhouse processor in the 15/17 is a bit of a problem. The 13 is more the mobile/affordable model and even if you could get a quad core CPU in a 13, it probably would not sell as well as many people say. Why? From what I have seen, much of the resource heavy work that people do, whether it be games, certain stats, number crunching, video editing, etc, seem to be ideal with a larger screen. If I did some of the things my friends did, I would buy at least a 15. With what I do, the 13 is fine and the C2D v. SB v. IB v. Haswell probably would make no difference.
Obviously, exceptions exist, but I feel that most 13 inch users opt for mobility over performance. They are also more often limited in price, but some of us, want something that is inexpensive but still retains a metal case which gives the computer more durability. If they are going to put a high end CPU in the 13, they still should be sure to have a price-minded configuration. I feel that killing the 13 inch MacBook aluminum laptop would be a huge mistake; I also feel that upping the MSRP $500 more due to advanced functions would be as well. I wouldn't mind a dual or even quad core SB 13 inch MBP; but if it's starting price is $2,000; I am going to opt for the MBA or something else. I am very involved with a few institutions and I know MANY college, undergrad and grad, students who have busted their ass to pay for the entry 13 inch MBP. Power upgrades will be great, but the price needs to be kept in mind.
I could be all wrong...just my 2.2 pounds.
No but really the 2GHz C2D Air w/ 4GB RAM and its flash memory kills the Atom based computers...I can say that from first hand experience. We love all of our MBAs...even the originals still work great and they aren't slow. Having a SSD makes a much bigger difference in some basic programs than a CPU upgrade. I would dare say most MBA users are doing the more basic tasks and want mobility over performance. A MBA is not going to be a i7 15/17 inch MBP ever; but I don't think many people have ever expected them to be. Capability and mobility are both important in laptops, and some users need more of one than the other. I know MANY disabled persons who have the MBA and they LOVE them as they don't have to settle for a pin-head keyboard, but despite their disability, they can carry them for long distances without discomfort.
The 13 MBA/MBP doesn't need to be super jedi fast...at least not until porn accepts 1280p. Now not having a powerhouse processor in the 15/17 is a bit of a problem. The 13 is more the mobile/affordable model and even if you could get a quad core CPU in a 13, it probably would not sell as well as many people say. Why? From what I have seen, much of the resource heavy work that people do, whether it be games, certain stats, number crunching, video editing, etc, seem to be ideal with a larger screen. If I did some of the things my friends did, I would buy at least a 15. With what I do, the 13 is fine and the C2D v. SB v. IB v. Haswell probably would make no difference.
Obviously, exceptions exist, but I feel that most 13 inch users opt for mobility over performance. They are also more often limited in price, but some of us, want something that is inexpensive but still retains a metal case which gives the computer more durability. If they are going to put a high end CPU in the 13, they still should be sure to have a price-minded configuration. I feel that killing the 13 inch MacBook aluminum laptop would be a huge mistake; I also feel that upping the MSRP $500 more due to advanced functions would be as well. I wouldn't mind a dual or even quad core SB 13 inch MBP; but if it's starting price is $2,000; I am going to opt for the MBA or something else. I am very involved with a few institutions and I know MANY college, undergrad and grad, students who have busted their ass to pay for the entry 13 inch MBP. Power upgrades will be great, but the price needs to be kept in mind.
I could be all wrong...just my 2.2 pounds.
I agree with you. From what I have read of the criticisms of Apple's use of C2D processors in its 13 inch laptops, most of the complainers seem to have been spec whores who didn't understand what led Apple to stick with the C2D instead of using i series chips in its 13 inch models. The only way Apple could provide first class graphics was to use NVIDIA's excellent 320M integrated graphics processor instead of the vastly inferior integrated GPU Intel foists on licensees of its i series chips.
The consensus seems to be that the Intel integrated GPU incorporated into its Sandy Bridge chips is still pretty bad, although some are claiming that it is much improved and rivals the performance of the 320M. For the moment, though, we simply don't know.
As I see it, there are mainly 3 types of people among the complainers:
1) "Spec whores" who only care about the latest and greatest CPU.
2) Computer illiterates who are ignorant about the implications of the Intel-NVIDIA licensing issues.
3) Nerds who think that the ODD should be removed to make space for a discrete graphics card.
Last edited:
Who really should just get a 15" MBP.
Which isn't really so surprising, as there really weren't any implications as to the licensing resolution. NVIDIA still can't make IGPs for anything newer than Core 2, so basically all that happened is NVIDIA gets money from Intel, which affects us not. Which wouldn't be your first expectation when you saw the words "Intel and NVIDIA have settled their dispute" in a web tech article headline.
Who really should just get a 15" MBP.
I still think the white MacBook should be culled, and the 13" aluminium just called the MacBook. At least then the names, and the 13" product line, would make sense. Maybe sell the rest of the whites off to education facilities for extra cheap.
Paying over a grand for such old tech (c2d) is insanity. I highly doubt they would use it again. Although I would not have predicted they put those relics in their new airs as well. Also blows my mind so many people bought it. Seriously retarded behavior... 
Paying over a grand for such old tech (c2d) is insanity. I highly doubt they would use it again. Although I would not have predicted they put those relics in their new airs as well. Also blows my mind so many people bought it. Seriously retarded behavior...
Real-world differences in performance between Penryn and Arrandale (especially on Arrandale Core i3 chips) is pretty minimal. If you need those extra seconds, then fine, a 15" Pro is probably the best of the Mac laptops for you, otherwise Core 2 Duo is fine. Where it becomes noticeable is with these new Sandy Bridge CPUs, but even then, they're not in the Macs yet anyway, and given the newest delay, they may not be for a while yet.
Or at least they should make it an Education-only model MacBook like the Mid-2006 iMac (17" Core Duo with the Intel GMA 950 instead of the ATI Radeon X1600) or the eMac. Maybe it can be called a "MacBook Ed"? Okay, we don't have to go that far. But the more I think of it, the more I realize that rebranding the 13" Pro as the "MacBook" and making whitey an Education-only model makes the most sense all around.
Correct. Apple made a wise choice in deciding to use the C2D processor and the NVIDIA 320M integrated graphics processor in the MBA. Those who say that Apple's not using an Intel i Series chip and its woefully inadequate integrated GPU in the NBA instead was "insanity" are simply showing their ignorance of the issues that faced Apple.
I have 500GB or storage in my 13" MBP...which Air does this at the same price point?