MacBook and MacBook Pro: Penryn, Battery Life, Updates Sooner than Later?

[dam0dred]

I have to say it is slightly amusing that people waited and waited so long for these updates only to find out that performance is pretty much the same as the previous revision.

 

[Phrasikleia]

Those aren't slot-loading.

Right. I realized that right after I posted. I don't see Apple ditching the slot-loaded drive just to add Blu-Ray.

 

[gkarris]

The biggest question is why Apple bothered speed bumping the MacBooks which were not yet due for revision. According to our sources, Apple was forced by Intel into upgrading the MacBooks at this time. Intel is aggressively phasing out the older generation 65nm Merom chips over the coming months. As a result, Apple needed to upgrade the MacBooks in the interim to maintain a proper supply. One could speculate that, consequently, the next MacBook refreshes may occur mid-year, ahead of their expected product cycle.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Cancel my order for a refurb Black MacBook?

Aluminum MacBooks still due in May?

Arrgh!

 

[Snips]

Intel is aggressively phasing out the older generation 65nm Merom chips over the coming months. As a result, Apple needed to upgrade the MacBooks in the interim to maintain a proper supply. One could speculate that, consequently, the next MacBook refreshes may occur mid-year, ahead of their expected product cycle.

Article Link

Thanks for the analysis, but I don't follow how this implies the MacBook refresh may occur ahead of expected product cycle, please could you clarify?

Are you saying that this week's 'refresh' was a freebie, and that the actual product refresh cycle should be based on the 2006 introduction?

Thanks in advance,
Nige

 

[winterspan]

Someone tell me why its only 3MB L2 Cache? I waited so long and paid this much for a lower cache than the previous MBP? You got to be kidding me, I am very close to canceling my order. Someone tell me if its a big difference with 3MB to 4MB.

chances are you'll be profiting more from the increase in processor speed than suffering from the decrease of the cache size. plus when there are programs that use the new sse4 instruction set, the old meroms definitely bite the dust in any comparison.

because that's how Intel makes the chips

First of all, stop panicking. The 3MB vs the 4MB likely won't have much of an effect in real world performance. So little you wouldn't even really notice, and definitely worth the improvement in batter life and heat output. Any multimedia application that uses SSE4.1, which will include all pro apps and most audio, video, photo editing, 3d graphics, etc apps at some point in the near future.

With 65nm Merom, the higher clock speed chips had 4MB of L2 cache, while the lower clockspeed had 2MB. With Penryn, the same rules apply, except the higher clocks have 6MB, and the lower 4MB. In the case of the MB and MBP, I believe that the reason the 2.1 and 2.4ghz have 3MB cache and not 6MB is because Intel is scaling the clockspeeds of mobile Penryns higher than Merom, and thus the 2.1 and 2.4ghz chips would actually represent the "low end", with 2.5ghz and higher representing the 6MB "high end".
On the mobile Penryn roadmap is a dual-core 3.06ghz "Extreme" part, and an unknown frequency mobile quad-core part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors

Intel pushing Apple to use the Penryn chip isn't a good thing. Yes the MBP was due for an update, by Apple product standards, but it was still comparably better than anything else in its class. Instead of getting a major revision in specs and design, Apple was forced to introduce a marginal upgrade. Yes multi-touch was something everyone wanted in the new MB ad MBP, but even that is minor.

The idea that Apple was "forced" to make a marginal upgrade rather than a major revision is just non-sensical. Why would the fact that Intel made Apple switch chips have any bearing at all on whether Apple made other improvements? By their own standards, Apple has had an enormous amount of time to prepare a significant update and failed to do so. Maybe this is just a minor bump, and you'll in fact see a totally redesigned MBP in a few months from now. Either way, how did you get all the way to blaming Intel?

 

[dante@sisna.com]

I have to say it is slightly amusing that people waited and waited so long for these updates only to find out that performance is pretty much the same as the previous revision.

A lot of people knew that this update would be very weak.

I watched them try to warn those who were desperately waiting for so many months.

If you look at Apple through business and marketing eyes, as opposed to the looking glass of a technology wish list, Apple updates are very predictable.

I will watch and learn for the future.

 

[gkarris]

The idea that Apple was "forced" to make a marginal upgrade rather than a major revision is just non-sensical. Why would the fact that Intel made Apple switch chips have any bearing at all on whether Apple made other improvements? By their own standards, Apple has had an enormous amount of time to prepare a significant update and failed to do so. Maybe this is just a minor bump, and you'll in fact see a totally redesigned MBP in a few months from now. Either way, how did you get all the way to blaming Intel?

Welcome, everyone to the PC Intel World - updates every 4-6 months...

 

[tirerim]

hm.. about time

I'll miss the old apple key, but it was kind of a pain to have to describe it when doing phone support.

Huh? It's the key with the apple symbol on it; doesn't seem that hard to describe to me. It's only hard if you call it "command" rather than "apple". I may be betraying my childhood spent on Apple ][e's, though. I'll miss the old three-fingered salute being control-apple-reset... not that I've had to use it much lately.

 

[winterspan]

The only problem with this is that consumers are getting a 4% (on average) CPU increase. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, noticeable at all. You can't do anything with 4%. Hopefully the next upgrade will see the Nehalem, six core, processors. Minor revisions bring up the issue of consumers having buyers remorse. If Nehalem ships in Q4 of this year as reported, people will be crying to high heavens about Apple doing them wrong. Multi-touch is ok but give me a 10% CPU increase, more L2 cache (which thankfully Penryn has), .....

I agree, however the Nehalem 6-core processors you are referring to are MP server parts for 4-32 socket enterprise servers, they sure as heck aren't going to be found in a laptop anytime soon. But the good news is you won't have to wait for Nehalem, as mobile variant 3.06ghz dual core and an unknown speed (probably 2.5-> 2.6ghz) quad-core is on the roadmap for Penryn.
I myself will wait for Nehalem though since it's a totally new architecture, which will be a much greater leap from Penryn, than Merom to Penryn was.
Nehalem will have mainstream quad-core laptop chips with Quickpath and an on-die mem controller, and SSE4.2, which is the second half of SSE4.1 that Penryn has.

The 3870 is coming in March, just in time!

?? 3870 has been out for months right?

 

[akadmon]

I'm more worried about the next refresh of MBPs.

My ADC discount expires in September. So do I buy the latest MBP fresh on release, today? Or, do I hold out until September for one more refresh, with the possibility of time running out and then using my discount to buy a six-month old MBP.

Buy now. Apple is going to milk this release for all it's worth, that is to say they'll wait until most kids wanting to buy a MBP will crack under pressure in September. You'll see the update no sooner than October, after the iPod deal is over.

 

[tirerim]

If anybody knows this site it tells when they update all apple products.
if you google know when to buy a mac this website comes up saying when the product is going to be updated. And yes, the iMac is on that list.
the only thing I can't provide the link because I'm on my iPod touch and it does not have copy and paste, yet.

Um, I assume you're talking about https://buyersguide.macrumors.com//? You do realize that that's solely based on the length of time between previous updates of the same product, and other rumors on macrumors, right? There's no inside information there, and there's often significant variance in the update times, so while often it makes good guesses, it can still be wildly off.

 

[PK0408830]

Apple Haggle

does anyone know of or have been able to talk the apple salesman down on the price or been able to get any free stuff from the sale. I'm gonna buy the new macbook pro, but i just want to know if anyone has any experience or seen before the ability to talk down the sales price of the mac or get like free apple care.

Thanks

 

[twoodcc]

interesting. i'm very surprised to hear that the 2.4 in the new machines are slower than the 2.4 in the old machines? even if it's just by a little bit, i don't like it.

also, i think it's a bad move to not include the remote. no one is going to buy it anyways

 

[akadmon]

Mini could use leftovers from the MacBook. Maybe a 2.0/2.2 X3100 mini. iMacs will be next, no doubt.

I like your Mini theory. My money is on the Mini, though the iMac can't be far behind. And in case some of you iMac lovers get overly excited, I'm giving you a heads up: no touch screen iMacs until 2012

 

[dante@sisna.com]

Buy now. Apple is going to milk this release for all it's worth, that is to say they'll wait until most kids wanting to buy a MBP will crack under pressure in September. You'll see the update no sooner than October, after the iPod deal is over.

Agree -- I have come to know you as one of the wise ones who hang out here.

 

[robanga]

I have to say it is slightly amusing that people waited and waited so long for these updates only to find out that performance is pretty much the same as the previous revision.

Why do you find someone not having their expectations met amusing?

Just curious ...

 

[winterspan]

Wait, when was a slim-profile, slot-loading Blu-Ray drive announced/introduced? I was not aware there were any in production (Apple does not manufacture these parts...)

Edit: I shoulda googled it.

http://store.fastmac.com/product_info.php?cPath=10_2_52&products_id=195

$899 for the option, probably close to $1200 in the MBP if Apple built it in. I suppose you would like an 128GB SSD with that? $5k MBP?

Welcome, everyone to the PC Intel World - updates every 4-6 months...

I WISH Apple would adopt that kind of behavior. I hate when new stuff comes out and PC manufacturers have it out in 2 weeks and Apple takes a whole **** quarter or more to get the same parts out.
Whats the deal with Apple people hating quick updates? Wouldn't they rather have up to date equipment all the time than to "eel like their computer isn't "outdated" for longer?

 

[bov]

correct me if im wrong but arent those unboxing pictures of the "new" macbook pro actually pictures of the old one? theres only 1 USB port on the left side, while the new ones have 2 on the left side.

am i missing something here?

 

[arn]

interesting. i'm very surprised to hear that the 2.4 in the new machines are slower than the 2.4 in the old machines? even if it's just by a little bit, i don't like it. it's a bad move to not include the remote. no one is going to buy it anyways

they aren't slower. 3086 and 3094 are essentially the same. If you run the same test over and over on the same machine, you'll get more variation than 8 points.

arn

 

[flopticalcube]

?? 3870 has been out for months right?

Mobility HD3870

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=218990

 

[gkarris]

Whats the deal with Apple people hating quick updates? Wouldn't they rather have up to date equipment all the time than to "eel like their computer isn't "outdated" for longer?

We're just used to old Apple updates like with the PPC, where Apple updated their equipment about once per year.

The 4-6 month "PC" cycle is a bit dizzying...

Do I buy, do I wait, do I buy, do I wait...

I bought - 2 months later - oh shoot, a new one's out....

I just ordered the refurbed Black MacBook, so of course, Apple will come out with that Aluminum MacBook (looks like the Air, but thicker) that I've always wanted 3 months from now...

 

[jragosta]

chances are you'll be profiting more from the increase in processor speed than suffering from the decrease of the cache size. plus when there are programs that use the new sse4 instruction set, the old meroms definitely bite the dust in any comparison.

Isn't the bus speed faster on the new ones, as well?

 

[winterspan]

they aren't slower. 3086 and 3094 are essentially the same. If you run the same test over and over on the same machine, you'll get more variation than 8 points.

arn

and again, as I noted above, Most people wants fast processors to actually process something, not just sit there. Just like the SSSE3, SSE3, SSE2, etc that came before it, I bet within a few months nearly all multi-media apps will be making use of SSE4.1. In those cases, the new cooler-running, less power intensive 45nm Penryn will be up to ~40% faster than the existing Merom chip.
In the future as the faster mobile Penryn's arrive, I bet you see apple moving the macbook to 2.5/2.6 chips that both have 6MB L2 cache.

 

[jragosta]

interesting. i'm very surprised to hear that the 2.4 in the new machines are slower than the 2.4 in the old machines? even if it's just by a little bit, i don't like it.

also, i think it's a bad move to not include the remote. no one is going to buy it anyways

The new low end is the same speed as the old high end. No different than usual.

And I'm personally glad to see the remote made an option. I didn't like paying for a remote on a laptop - I just can't see any possible scenario where I'd need it. So why should I pay for it?

 

[badNameErr]

If you look at Apple through business and marketing eyes, as opposed to the looking glass of a technology wish list, Apple updates are very predictable.

You really don't belong here.