Intel Announces 'Sandy Bridge' Core Processors

[Red33m]

They're not as fast as they can be and therefore they are not as fast as they SHOULD be. Apple should be putting out the best product that they possibly can. I don't think even they disagree with this sentiment, they just have really good marketing which allows for them to not go all the way in that regard and still sell tons for the cost.



You're a fanboy for being that pro-Apple, but you're a tool for claiming it to be appropriately fast for the cost. And I know that I have the option of not buying it, you serve no purpose to remind me of that. I'll buy one anyway, but given the money I'm spending versus what the competition could've provided me, I think I'm justified in griping.

That said, if I wanted to run a program that was cross-platform (like Photoshop, or Premiere), I could have a much faster PC laptop running it for the same cost as a low-end MacBook. $1000 buys a Core i7 laptop from Asus and a Core 2 Duo (white) MacBook from Apple. That's not cool.



I AM a professional. I use my Mac for video editing AND gaming AND EVERYTHING! Even after I off-load the gaming duties to my PC tower (which is twice the power of a 27" iMac for half the cost, mind you), it'd still be nice to do all of those other tasks with minimal lag. And as software evolves, so must the hardware that runs it. So, yeah, it fits my needs now, but if I'm spending $2000 on it, I want it to fit my needs FOR YEARS, and the best way to do that is to run it on updated hardware.



At this point, you are impossible to take seriously. I have NO OTHER CHOICE! If I want to buy a Mac laptop with a discrete GPU, my only option is the MacBook Pro. That's it. I have no choice. There is no choice. I'd like it to be better, but I have no choice but to buy it. Though as a paying customer, I can and will complain. I fail to see how you don't understand that.



What does that even mean?!

OK I agree. it's not just me on the planet..The fact that a simple MB fits my needs doesn't mean that it fits everyones needs..

Apple could have done better on the MBP line. Totally agreed..i just googled some "Macbook Pro 17" vs" ..I couldn't believe my eyes! HP Envy 17" for less than 999$ ? Damn that's a rip off!

Apple could have done better on the Pro line..and it is too damn expensive

Yes I changed my mind..

 

[pr5owner]

back on topic

NOT BAD for an IGP

but if apple charges $1300+ for something onboard i will laugh

i would say the i7 with an IGP should cost around $799 (this is with 4GB ram, 500GB HDD 7200RPM, 1600x900 display)

 

[Red33m]

back on topic

NOT BAD for an IGP

but if apple charges $1300+ for something onboard i will laugh

i would say the i7 with an IGP should cost around $799 (this is with 4GB ram, 500GB HDD 7200RPM, 1600x900 display)

Yes but the logo bumps up the price too..

 

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

Yes, an infinite amount of money still can't buy a quad core Macbook Pro.... .

This is exactly your problem. You don't see what Apple has to offer..you wish Apple had this to offer.

This is not how stuff works though mate..you like the product you buy it..you don't like it..then don"t buy it.

Interesting that you replied to the joke that I made, but ignored my real points.

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

Seriously, the MBPs are OK for midrange laptops - except that their prices are top end.

Keep the MBPs, but someone needs to tell Apple that there's a market for a high-end range of systems where performance, storage, and connectivity are more important than "thin" and "long battery life".

That, and add a Blu-ray burner and full support for BD playback.

 

[Yebubbleman]

back on topic

NOT BAD for an IGP

but if apple charges $1300+ for something onboard i will laugh

i would say the i7 with an IGP should cost around $799 (this is with 4GB ram, 500GB HDD 7200RPM, 1600x900 display)

The i7 shouldn't even be used with the IGP, unless we're talking about it being used in an Optimus-like fashion.

Back on topic, fu*k Intel IGPs.

 

[pr5owner]

The i7 shouldn't even be used with the IGP, unless we're talking about it being used in an Optimus-like fashion.

Back on topic, fu*k Intel IGPs.

yeah i would say optimus is the only reason why it would be on a higher end cpu, if they can make a gaming laptop last 5 hours on battery, that would be perfect.

 

[Hellhammer]

back on topic

NOT BAD for an IGP

but if apple charges $1300+ for something onboard i will laugh

i would say the i7 with an IGP should cost around $799 (this is with 4GB ram, 500GB HDD 7200RPM, 1600x900 display)

That i7 costs 568$

 

[Yebubbleman]

yeah i would say optimus is the only reason why it would be on a higher end cpu, if they can make a gaming laptop last 5 hours on battery, that would be perfect.

Honestly, I'd be pretty content with a 15" MacBook Pro with the battery life of the current model white MacBook and 13" MacBook Pro.

 

[blue22]

nice one!

Seriously, the MBPs are OK for midrange laptops - except that their prices are top end.

Keep the MBPs, but someone needs to tell Apple that there's a market for a high-end range of systems where performance, storage, and connectivity are more important than "thin" and "long battery life".

I agree that Apple doesn't do enough to max out the specs of their laptops (and do so more frequently) while charging you premium prices for mid-range options on a "high end" system. A bit lame actually. But as long as people keep buying them I guess they won't be lowering their price points anytime soon.

Everyone loses when you bring in a car analogy.

Brilliant one-liner, well done!

 

[devilcm3]

Just wondered , when apple will refresh their MBP line?
i was expecting it to happen this or next month until the speculations said that 11th press release would be a Verizon CDMA iPhone , what a disappointment

 

[vipergts2207]

Just wondered , when apple will refresh their MBP line?
i was expecting it to happen this or next month until the speculations said that 11th press release would be a Verizon CDMA iPhone , what a disappointment

Sandy Bridge dual cores won't be out until February 20th, so March at the earliest.

 

[pr5owner]

That i7 costs 568$

yeah maybe for you, price depends on quantity, when you order 10 million of these it wont be $568

 

[MattInOz]

Sandy Bridge dual cores won't be out until February 20th, so March at the earliest.

Have to be early march they have to get ready for iOS in April.
And wwdc in June/July.
But it has to be after the desktop refresh late Jan?

 

[Hellhammer]

yeah maybe for you, price depends on quantity, when you order 10 million of these it wont be $568

That's in 1k lots. That price is all we got. If you know the price of 10 million units, please share it.

But it has to be after the desktop refresh late Jan?

What desktop refresh?

 

[Mal67]

I'm not an artist and if Apple could get its UI consistency together instead of having people drool over it (or bemoan the inconsistencies) maybe they'd realize how gray and utilitarian it is. Straight lines with a few curves never got more attention as art. I'm a fan of Baroque and Neoclassicism. Then again I'm just a Liberal Arts major working in IT.

Tongue in cheek?
Because gray and utiltarian with straight lines is my impression of the macbook pro design. I'm hoping to see some changes to the box this year.

 

[gigi11192]

i dont know about you guys, but i just think the snb is gonna be a great update.
(esp. for mbp 13).
we get thinner, lighter, and longer battery, and great performance boost.
Personally, i dont think we need that nice graphics for a 13 inch laptop, if you want to play hard-core games, go buy 15 or 17 or just enjoy with a desktop. d

 

[435713]

i dont know about you guys, but i just think the snb is gonna be a great update.
(esp. for mbp 13).
we get thinner, lighter, and longer battery, and great performance boost.
Personally, i dont think we need that nice graphics for a 13 inch laptop, if you want to play hard-core games, go buy 15 or 17 or just enjoy with a desktop. d

We shall see shortly how the update is. Personally I think if they want to charge 1199.00 USD for a laptop it better have a good GPU, it better start having faster processors. Thinner and lighter can go to hell on the MBP line. Its plenty thin enough and light enough. If you cant lift 5 lbs go see a doctor stat. Thats nothing to carry around in backpack or whatever. The air is good if you need lighter and thinner.

If you have to go 15 or 17 you're starting at freaking 1799.00 USD for that much.. well look at other makers and see what you get. Hopefully Apple starts offering what everyone else has been doing for awhile and all will be good. Highly doubt it though.

Prices no BS should be currently, with price drops since there dated.

MB $699

MBP 13' $899

MBP 15 $1199

MBP 17' $1499

IMO, cue the "I'm glad you dont run apple comments" Which would be a lie since the people saying it would be thrilled to save the cash Laptops dont cost as much to make anymore regardless of what nutJobs says, the logo I heard still cost between 300-800 bucks though.

 

[devilcm3]

We shall see shortly how the update is. Personally I think if they want to charge 1199.00 USD for a laptop it better have a good GPU, it better start having faster processors. Thinner and lighter can go to hell on the MBP line. Its plenty thin enough and light enough. If you cant lift 5 lbs go see a doctor stat. Thats nothing to carry around in backpack or whatever. The air is good if you need lighter and thinner.

If you have to go 15 or 17 you're starting at freaking 1799.00 USD for that much.. well look at other makers and see what you get. Hopefully Apple starts offering what everyone else has been doing for awhile and all will be good. Highly doubt it though.

Prices no BS should be currently, with price drops since there dated.

MB $699

MBP 13' $899

MBP 15 $1199

MBP 17' $1499

IMO, cue the "I'm glad you dont run apple comments" Which would be a lie since the people saying it would be thrilled to save the cash Laptops dont cost as much to make anymore regardless of what nutJobs says, the logo I heard still cost between 300-800 bucks though.

you can start telling gucci your two alphabet logo doesn't cost $2000+

 

[pr5owner]

We shall see shortly how the update is. Personally I think if they want to charge 1199.00 USD for a laptop it better have a good GPU, it better start having faster processors. Thinner and lighter can go to hell on the MBP line. Its plenty thin enough and light enough. If you cant lift 5 lbs go see a doctor stat. Thats nothing to carry around in backpack or whatever. The air is good if you need lighter and thinner.

If you have to go 15 or 17 you're starting at freaking 1799.00 USD for that much.. well look at other makers and see what you get. Hopefully Apple starts offering what everyone else has been doing for awhile and all will be good. Highly doubt it though.

Prices no BS should be currently, with price drops since there dated.

MB $699

MBP 13' $899

MBP 15 $1199

MBP 17' $1499

IMO, cue the "I'm glad you dont run apple comments" Which would be a lie since the people saying it would be thrilled to save the cash Laptops dont cost as much to make anymore regardless of what nutJobs says, the logo I heard still cost between 300-800 bucks though.

whats funny is even your no bs prices are too high for current price/performance standards.

the base model 15" is a crappy i5 cpu, those are found in $700 laptops (laptops with dedicated video cards)

 

[63dot]

whats funny is even your no bs prices are too high for current price/performance standards.

the base model 15" is a crappy i5 cpu, those are found in $700 laptops (laptops with dedicated video cards)

There is something to be said for the rugged design, the industrial design, and the simple to use (and elegant) OS. That being said, Apple is currently overpriced imho. They could come down quite a bit.

The i5 cpu may not be a quad i7, but it's by no means a crappy cpu.

Intel has five lines of mobile cpus with celeron starting the line at the first level, pentium next, i3 in the middle, i5, and then i7. The pentium and later, are all dual core at least. Even the netbook favorite Intel Atom has gone to dual core in latest renditions.

And Intel's chief competitor, AMD, does not have five levels of processors to match Intel at this time which could boast the same low power consumption.

Power consumption, and not speed, is what drives the mobile processor market and Intel finds itself way ahead of AMD in a way it never has. We will see what AMD has in store next, but they will have to put out some mobile chips with superior battery times if they are to recapture some of the market.

 

[Eidorian]

Intel appears to be using the NEC D720200F1 controller for USB 3.0 support on their motherboards.

 

[435713]

whats funny is even your no bs prices are too high for current price/performance standards.

the base model 15" is a crappy i5 cpu, those are found in $700 laptops (laptops with dedicated video cards)

Believe me I know. I had to put a little premium on there. It will have the logo afterall

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Maybe Apple just discontinues the Macbook Pros and the Macbook and from now on everything will just be like the Macbook Air. Thin, getting smaller to the front, SSDs, no ODD, etc... Not sure if Apple will call them Macbook Airs but I guess thats where we go from here. Just wondering if they would be able to fit a discrete graphics card in the 15" and 17" packages.

 

[Erasmus]

Maybe Apple just discontinues the Macbook Pros and the Macbook and from now on everything will just be like the Macbook Air. Thin, getting smaller to the front, SSDs, no ODD, etc... Not sure if Apple will call them Macbook Airs but I guess thats where we go from here. Just wondering if they would be able to fit a discrete graphics card in the 15" and 17" packages.

Please don't even joke about crap like that

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

There is something to be said for the rugged design, the industrial design, and the simple to use (and elegant) OS. That being said, Apple is currently overpriced imho. They could come down quite a bit.

The i5 cpu may not be a quad i7, but it's by no means a crappy cpu.

Intel has five lines of mobile cpus with celeron starting the line at the first level, pentium next, i3 in the middle, i5, and then i7. The pentium and later, are all dual core at least. Even the netbook favorite Intel Atom has gone to dual core in latest renditions.

And Intel's chief competitor, AMD, does not have five levels of processors to match Intel at this time which could boast the same low power consumption.

Power consumption, and not speed, is what drives the mobile processor market and Intel finds itself way ahead of AMD in a way it never has. We will see what AMD has in store next, but they will have to put out some mobile chips with superior battery times if they are to recapture some of the market.

I think he means it's not one of the better i5 CPUs.