Nope, refurb doesn't count. I found a late 2011 refurb for $270 off, and an early 2011 refurb for ~$500 off. So the discount for the "old" model is still only $250.Actually, it's not that hard.
There you go, that's $500 off the Early 2011 model. I have seen the base Early 2011 2.0GHz quad-core i7 for as low as $1300. That one is a little harder to find, but the higher-end models? $1500 is a good price point at which you'll find these machines more often than not.
And under Mac, I'd think the CPU is more important than the GPU, unless you are still rocking Intel GMA 3100.
The new technology is called "make the iPad thicker, reduce the size of other internal components, and increase the weight by ~50 g." The new battery has increased in size about as much as it increased in capacity.What of this new technology(?) that Apple has incorporated into the new iPad battery (almost doubling the size charge without doubling the size of the battery). Do you think this will make it to the new Macbook Pros and Airs and could this be used to offset the power drain of potential high resolution ('retina') displays?
Why don't they count? The current generation is still Late 2011, so Early 2011 should be the "old" model. Plus Apple's refurb has a good reputation so in either case, it's a valid alternative for those not looking to spend a lot on an upgrade.Nope, refurb doesn't count. I found a late 2011 refurb for $270 off, and an early 2011 refurb for ~$500 off. So the discount for the "old" model is still only $250.
I was actually able to find a new early 2011 model at amazon $400 off the original price ($1800, down from $2200 for the high-end model). If we take this as basis, it's 20% more cost for roughly 10% more performance. Seems acceptable, if money is not super tight!
Uh... no. I don't think it's appropriate to discuss the new iPad here, but just to note: the new battery has 70% more capacity, going from 25WHr to 42.5WHr. ~50g is a 8.3% increase from the old battery, and 9.4mm compared to 8.8mm is a ~6% increase. It's actually not "about as much". If Apple could continue the trend, they would be able to stack 85WHr at just 18.8mm, or less than an inch.The new technology is called "make the iPad thicker, reduce the size of other internal components, and increase the weight by ~50 g." The new battery has increased in size about as much as it increased in capacity.
With the great majority of Apple's profit, focus, and buzz around iOS devices, it's no secret that everything else is secondary.Wonder how long the wait will be...
There are more ways to add battery capacity. Remove the ODD and simply make it bigger. Of course there's that whole redesign thing. If the Pro line gets any thinner I don't think this will fly.But to put things in perspective, the current MacBook Pro 15 battery is 77WHr, at also less than an inch. So the improvement wouldn't be much for MacBook Pro,
The Retina Display on the iPad is already estimated as consuming approximately 70% more power. The problem is mainly that the gap between each pixel got smaller, so less light could shine through, and so they had to double the backlight intensity just to get it to the same brightness as before.There are more ways to add battery capacity. Remove the ODD and simply make it bigger. Of course there's that whole redesign thing. If the Pro line gets any thinner I don't think this will fly.
Which leads me to believe they won't be thinner. Will need the extra juice (larger battery) for a new display.
...with a smaller ODD:It sounds like you should wait. They are only a few months away at this point, and all signs point to a redesign.
I don't see that happening for at least 3-5 years. ARM is lightyears behind Intel. The only thing that makes sense would be some kind of ARM-Intel combo. Use ARM when doing light stuff like web browsing could extend the battery life. The Intel processor could kick in for heavy work.Apple has been pushing Intel for lower TDP processors. An ARM CPU would make a large difference in power consumption and heat.
ARM CPUs are nowhere near x86 CPUs, even the upcoming ARM15 ones have less than a third of the computing power of what is in the mainstream Macs. They offer more performance per watt but power consumption isn't everything and they lose efficiency once you scale past a certain point. Just like how Intel struggled to get Atom down to smartphone power levels, ARM will struggle to get CPUs as powerful as the current Intel lineup.Apple has been pushing Intel for lower TDP processors. An ARM CPU would make a large difference in power consumption and heat.
This would make the users who still want a built-in ODD happy. But what about some of us who want it gone? Making the MBP thinner and including this new and improved ODD may make it impossible for us to use the drive bay for a second HDD/SSD, as it would be too thin. I would not be pleased with that outcome.
http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/how-arm-took-on-the-world-and-won-1067393ARM is lightyears behind Intel.
wait and see like alot are doing i have eraly 2011 13" and i want the new 2012 model but if the odd isnt still in the laptop im staying with what i have and just get a 16 gig mem kitI want to buy a Macbook Pro now, but I know I'll be gutted when the new Ivy Bridge ones come out. What shall I do?
And that's why I said it may disappoint. TDP doesn't decrease, and neither does power consumption.
What TDP measures is how much heat the chip puts out on average, or how much heat Intel "thinks" it puts out on average. In Penryn's case, even though power consumption dropped, heat was still about relatively the same, but in exchange, IPC improved, and also frequency scaling improved.
Like you said, Anand's article makes it seem like power consumption isn't significantly different compared to Sandy.
Where is less power drain?
Regarding the top 2, do take note that they are hexa-core (6-core) processors as opposed to quad. That's why the difference is so large compared to the 2600K. Compare the highlighted part to the 2600K and you'll see the quad vs quad result. In which case, it's not much difference.