if you were to upgrade a BTO Dell/HP laptop for a slightly higher CPU and slightly larger hard drive they would charge you about the same as well.
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.
Inside Apple's New MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
if you were to upgrade a BTO Dell/HP laptop for a slightly higher CPU and slightly larger hard drive they would charge you about the same as well.
Yes, and IMO this is excactly why peoples whining is reasonable. Technology becomes cheaper over time, and this is especially true when it comes to computer hardware. So when new models replace the older ones, either you offer the same tech at significantly lower prices, or you offer significantly better tech at the same prices.
This is a principle that follows almost all electronics, i.e. digital cameras, laptops, desktops, TVs (which have gotten better and a lot cheaper), etc etc.
Notice how Apple is one of the few that doesnt follow this trend. Instead, they offer pretty much the same tech (in which the CPU is now obslete) in the 13 inch at the same price point, and then they offer newer, better tech in the 15 and 17 inch models at a pretty significant price increase.
The result is that the Apple tax increases. Since its already pretty high, I think its completely reasonable that people are complaining about this.
I can only hope that Apple makes a huge leap by the next update. Their laptop price/feauture points are starting to lag more and more behind the competetors, and if this trend follows it will come to a point where its just not worth it, even for many Apple fanboys.
Of course, all this doesnt mean that the MBPs arent better than before, and Id much rather buy one now than right before the updates. That is not the point here.
Core2Duo vs i3 bechmarks (not on MBP)
http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/intel-core-i3-2-8ghz-vs-core-2-duo-e7400-2-8ghz-68758/
Things don't look good for Core2Duo
http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/intel-core-i3-2-8ghz-vs-core-2-duo-e7400-2-8ghz-68758/
Things don't look good for Core2Duo
Hey dudes, I'm planning to buy my first MBP but I have a few burning questions that still need to be answered before I can buy it...
Would you please answer them?
Here are the questions:
1) Is the unibody enclosure exactly the same as previous generation?
2) Can RAM and HDD/SSD still be easily upgraded by users?
3) Is this procedure still allowed by Apple EULA?
4) Do MBP only support up to 8 GB of RAM or they can host more (maybe via a BIOS -or the Apple equivalent- update?
5) Has someone already tried the update? If so, is the 8 GB RAM limit confirmed?
And, last but not least, who is the toughest? New MBP or Godzilla?!?
Thanks in advance!
P.
Would you please answer them?
Here are the questions:
1) Is the unibody enclosure exactly the same as previous generation?
2) Can RAM and HDD/SSD still be easily upgraded by users?
3) Is this procedure still allowed by Apple EULA?
4) Do MBP only support up to 8 GB of RAM or they can host more (maybe via a BIOS -or the Apple equivalent- update?
5) Has someone already tried the update? If so, is the 8 GB RAM limit confirmed?
And, last but not least, who is the toughest? New MBP or Godzilla?!?
Thanks in advance!
P.
Keep your judgements off other people's priorities!
So, I don't know if we are getting weaker, but I work in an office as the helpdesk guy. Many complain that Dell D610s or D630s or E6400s are too big and heavy. I would argue these are completely typical laptops, but many see them as not portable for frequent business travel.
Clearly these laptops would be portble for you. As they are for me.
But... you. are. not. everyone. Fortunately for laptop users you do not get to dictate that laptops should never be smaller than an E6500 or weigh less than 6 pounds.
That's great. Laptop size does not matter. TO YOU.
For the many that size and weight do matter, your Alienware desktop replacement coming in at 9 pounds would be a desktop. Even occasional travelers prefer 4lb or less laptops.
Bottom line: nobody gets to dictate for anybody else what is too big or too small. It's a personal choice and you have no right to dismiss another's priority. So stop already.
So, I don't know if we are getting weaker, but I work in an office as the helpdesk guy. Many complain that Dell D610s or D630s or E6400s are too big and heavy. I would argue these are completely typical laptops, but many see them as not portable for frequent business travel.
Clearly these laptops would be portble for you. As they are for me.
But... you. are. not. everyone. Fortunately for laptop users you do not get to dictate that laptops should never be smaller than an E6500 or weigh less than 6 pounds.
That's great. Laptop size does not matter. TO YOU.
For the many that size and weight do matter, your Alienware desktop replacement coming in at 9 pounds would be a desktop. Even occasional travelers prefer 4lb or less laptops.
Bottom line: nobody gets to dictate for anybody else what is too big or too small. It's a personal choice and you have no right to dismiss another's priority. So stop already.
There might be performance differences between deskops CPUs and laptop CPU variants...
Hey dudes, I'm planning to buy my first MBP but I have a few burning questions that still need to be answered before I can buy it...
Would you please answer them?
Here are the questions:
1) Is the unibody enclosure exactly the same as previous generation?
2) Can RAM and HDD/SSD still be easily upgraded by users?
3) Is this procedure still allowed by Apple EULA?
4) Do MBP only support up to 8 GB of RAM or they can host more (maybe via a BIOS -or the Apple equivalent- update?
5) Has someone already tried the update? If so, is the 8 GB RAM limit confirmed?
And, last but not least, who is the toughest? New MBP or Godzilla?!?
Thanks in advance!
P.
With two RAM slots, is more than 8GB of RAM even possible? Do they make 8GB DDR3 laptop DIMMS?
My apologies for not actually answering the question. (bad me)
Check out 18004memory.com to see if they have 8GB DIMMS. I'd be surprised. If they do have 'em, they're probably like $300 or $400 a piece..
Hey guys. I have a couple questions here.
- Is there any significant difference in performance between the 2.4GHz 13"MBP and the 2.66GHz 13"MBP ?
- Is it convenient to travel around with the 15" MBP ?
Btw, I'm a student that looking for my first mac.
Thank you.
Others can flame away, but I'd be hard pressed if you would ever notice the difference in processor speed (provided you're not doing a lot of graphics rendering or ripping DVD movies or similar).
barefeats.com should have speed testing results in not too long, I would think.
I would buy the $1200 13" MBP, and if you feel like you need a bigger HD, go to macsales.com (Other World Computing) and buy a 320GB or 500GB 7200 RPM Seagate drive for less than $100 and upgrade yourself (they used to allow trade-ins, too). (Do check that this doesn't void any warranty. I don't think it does.)
As far as traveling with a 15". Totally personal preference. For me, the 15" is definitely too big. The 13" is only a little too big (footprint-wise) but good on weight. And the 13" has plenty of computing power for what I need.
Good luck!
Thanks for the answer!
4 GB of RAM are more than enough for me right now...
I was just thinking ahead... If that upgrade is possible, the buy becomes even more solid...
Anyone for the other questions?
P.
Specs aside, what do people need all the power for?
So, those that are up in arms about Apple's laptops not being cutting edge enough, and just generally:
What do people need all the computing horsepower for?
Do most users on here find that Apple laptops can't get the job done as fast as other laptops?
It also seems that some that complain are using 3 or 4 year old hardware. But if your 3 or 4 year old hardware does what you need now, is there any chance that a brand new MBP, even if it doesn't offer the fastest available processor by .33 MHz, won't get the job done?
A computer is a tool. If people think that Apple's tools are significantly worse because the CPU is .25 or .33 or .37 MHz slower than someone else's, that's fine, but I feel like it's missing the point. Now, if that slightly slower CPU means that the tool can't accomplish the task, well, that's a different story. But that seems unlikely to me.
It just seems there is a lot of griping about specs that ultimately a very large percentage of users would never notice the difference. Yes, that isn't the point to a degree. At the same time, if the tool works really well, how much does that matter?
Take your average computer user. Say "firewire" or "USB 1" or "USB 2" or "USB 3" or "optical drive" or "RAM" or "eSATA" or "VGA" or "DVI" or "Display Port". If they can provide a decent definition for any of them I'd be surprised. And that's fine. Thankfully most of it works well enough that most don't need to know what they mean in order to do what they want.
What's the point? Computer companies make tools that work for the vast majority of users. Win and win.
No one's listening to the gripes of MacRumors readers. But end users are generally happy and computer companies make money. And the world keeps spinning....
So, those that are up in arms about Apple's laptops not being cutting edge enough, and just generally:
What do people need all the computing horsepower for?
Do most users on here find that Apple laptops can't get the job done as fast as other laptops?
It also seems that some that complain are using 3 or 4 year old hardware. But if your 3 or 4 year old hardware does what you need now, is there any chance that a brand new MBP, even if it doesn't offer the fastest available processor by .33 MHz, won't get the job done?
A computer is a tool. If people think that Apple's tools are significantly worse because the CPU is .25 or .33 or .37 MHz slower than someone else's, that's fine, but I feel like it's missing the point. Now, if that slightly slower CPU means that the tool can't accomplish the task, well, that's a different story. But that seems unlikely to me.
It just seems there is a lot of griping about specs that ultimately a very large percentage of users would never notice the difference. Yes, that isn't the point to a degree. At the same time, if the tool works really well, how much does that matter?
Take your average computer user. Say "firewire" or "USB 1" or "USB 2" or "USB 3" or "optical drive" or "RAM" or "eSATA" or "VGA" or "DVI" or "Display Port". If they can provide a decent definition for any of them I'd be surprised. And that's fine. Thankfully most of it works well enough that most don't need to know what they mean in order to do what they want.
What's the point? Computer companies make tools that work for the vast majority of users. Win and win.
No one's listening to the gripes of MacRumors readers. But end users are generally happy and computer companies make money. And the world keeps spinning....
In regard to the comment about the previously linked i3/c2d performance
Eidorian, the i3 Clarkdale is not an Arrendale.
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=43529,46473,
In particular, the cache differences, and the memory frequency differences are somewhat significant..
Eidorian, the i3 Clarkdale is not an Arrendale.
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=43529,46473,
In particular, the cache differences, and the memory frequency differences are somewhat significant..
Hmmm...
The native resolution of the screen will be 1680x1050. I'm sure there will be other resolution options that you can choose, but 1680x1050 will be the only one that will have exact 1 pixel of information to 1 screen pixel mapping.
Does that make sense? The nature of LCDS is that they only have one *ideal* resolution-- the native resolution, and only that one will have 1 to 1 pixel mapping. Unlike CRTs (tube monitors) which could scale well and easily (but took up all of your desk space and used lots of energy). There's always a trade off somewhere.
Ok, either you didn't read the linked intel comparision or I'm missing something here - how does the word 'identical' manage to apply to different cache and memory controller speeds?
How would a performance comparison using the Clarkdale and the faster memory/larger cache not be worthless?
they are identical
Intel has a few production lines and they all start making the same CPU. after the CPU's are produced they are tested with the ones passing everything being labeled as higher end. the ones with manufacturing errors get circuitry disabled and labeled as lower end CPU's with less features.
Everyone does this. it's the reason why Nvidia and ATI have 20 different models of graphics card every generation these days. no one wants to junk chips that can be used in lower end products. it's like going to Century 21 in NYC or one of the other outlet stores that sell quality rejects at slightly lower prices
in fact i've read that all CPU's start their life as Xeons and are binned after production with features/cache disabled
Intel has a few production lines and they all start making the same CPU. after the CPU's are produced they are tested with the ones passing everything being labeled as higher end. the ones with manufacturing errors get circuitry disabled and labeled as lower end CPU's with less features.
Everyone does this. it's the reason why Nvidia and ATI have 20 different models of graphics card every generation these days. no one wants to junk chips that can be used in lower end products. it's like going to Century 21 in NYC or one of the other outlet stores that sell quality rejects at slightly lower prices
in fact i've read that all CPU's start their life as Xeons and are binned after production with features/cache disabled
Perhaps you could explain to me how Penryn, Wolfdale, and Yorkfield are different.
Use DDR3-1066 for the benchmarks to eliminate the memory bandwidth factor.
If you're so concerned about cache use the Core i7 6xxM Arrandale parts. With the integrated memory controller cache plays less of a role. At this point 1 MB is going to be of marginal benefit.
Yes, of course. Everyone knows this.
.. le sigh. Why the douchbaggery?
I'm not trying to annoy people, or suggest anything stupid - I looked at the i3-c2d graphics from madshrimps (which your posts were in reference to) and thought:
"This isn't apples vs oranges, but it's hardly an accurate and direct comparision."
I'm not talking about performing my own benchmarks, I'm talking about the kinda semi-useful, partially relevant benchmarks quoted and defended by you in this thread.
Looking at the http://en.hardspell.com/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7464&pageid=6359 test (which the madshrimps is a summary of) there certainly is no suggestion that they're running the i3 at 1066 instead of 1333.
That is all.
Yes and no. They're there, although there is some discussion as to whether they're really subwoofers or simply a tweeter-woofer setup. I would question whether ANYTHING that would fit into the MBP housing could properly be called a sub-woofer, but that's just my opinion.
https://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/index.php/t-462912.html
I think you're very confused.
The new 13" has a faster CPU, MUCH faster graphics, better memory subsystem, better battery life, all for the same price.
For the 15 and 17", the performance is MUCH faster. So even if the price is up slightly (I didn't check), that's not inconsistent. Your simple rule (either same price and faster or same speed and cheaper) isn't a rule that anyone uses. More appropriately, it would be that Perfomance per dollar should increase over time. So, if the performance and specs increase faster than the price, that is consistent.
1. As far as I know. If there are changes, they are minor.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Officially, they only support 8 GB at this time- partly because 4 GB SODIMMS are the largest that are readily available. There have been a few times in the past when Apple said the limit is X GB and when larger DIMMs became available they worked. There have also been times when the limit was limited by the hardware. Sorry, I don't know which is the case here, but do you really expect to need more than 8 GB on a 13" laptop during the lifetime of that computer?
5. I doubt if you'll see this test any time soon. It would require someone who had access to 8 GB SODIMMs AND who was interested in testing them in a 13" laptop. I would think that anyone with access to those would want to test them in higher end hardware.
Well said.
ROTFLMAO. So you expect us to take you seriously when you say that we should use Clarkdale data to compare Arrandale performance since they have the same core? Did anyone explain to you that cache and memory system affects the performance?