MacBook Pro Now Shipping Plus Speed Bump

[guffman]

My day has been made...now its off to get the girl some flowers

 

[applemax]

Hey hey hey hey hey! What about us poor Brits? Do we have to drag behind with 1.83s??????!!!!

 

[Platform]

Free is relative considering I'm spending almost three and a half grand on this thing but it makes the value of the laptop a whole heck nicer. That and something about getting to 2Ghz. Not 1.65, not 1.83, not 1.96, but 2Ghz.

I know, just saying that you got an unexpected free upgrade for the same money.

And I don't think the 1.67Ghz are going to the MacBooks....dual core...nah

 

[dcv]

Well I guess this is a nice bonus for all those people that pre-ordered!

But it does make me wonder... did they actually build any 1.67GHz models at all and just not ship them - and if so are they now going to be sold off cheaper or through the refurb store? Did they build them as 1.67 and then open them up again to replace the chips? (in which case you're effectively getting a refurb)

If they were never going to ship the 1.67 versions then why announce them to start with? Just curious...

 

[Hattig]

Don't get me wrong...I was THRILLED to learn this AM that my 1.67 is being bumped to a 1.83, but Apple didn't do this out of altruism. Necessity drove this decision, as it drives all business decisions.

Either there is a shortage of 1.67 chips or Apple did not feel the 1.67 model was competitive (based on their pre-order sales), or they decided to use the 1.67 chip in the iBook. I don't know the exact reason, but there was a logical basis for Apple KO'ing the 1.67 chip. Obviously it was not Apple's intention to bump up the MBPs before they even shipped.

More likely they used preorder sales information to get Intel to give them a speed bump for free - or in other words a greater rebate on processors in return for buying a speed grade higher, resulting in the same wholesale price for the processor + 166MHz. It makes Apple's laptops look better in comparison with other manufacturers.

And as I predicted, Apple are offering processor options (well, an option). Nice.

 

[kretzy]

Well I guess this is a nice bonus for all those people that pre-ordered!

But it does make me wonder... did they actually build any 1.67GHz models at all and just not ship them - and if so are they now going to be sold off cheaper or through the refurb store? Did they build them as 1.67 and then open them up again to replace the chips? (in which case you're effectively getting a refurb)

If they were never going to ship the 1.67 versions then why announce them to start with? Just curious...

Marketing and PR, 'nuff said.


You look very pretty in that little pink number DCV!

 

[applemax]

Well the new one seems to be a bit thicker! Look at the thumbnails on the UK and US stores. The UK store seems a LOT thinner!

 

[MacSA]

Hey hey hey hey hey! What about us poor Brits? Do we have to drag behind with 1.83s??????!!!!

LOL........the rest of the world will probably get the slower 1.6/1.8 MacBook Pro

 

[gedto]

MacBook

I bet this is the reason:

- 12'' Core Solo MacBook
- 13.3'' Core Duo 1.67 GHz MacBook

Date: April 1st, 2006 - Thirtieth anniversary

 

[FireArse]

Well I guess this is a nice bonus for all those people that pre-ordered!

But it does make me wonder... did they actually build any 1.67GHz models at all and just not ship them - and if so are they now going to be sold off cheaper or through the refurb store? Did they build them as 1.67 and then open them up again to replace the chips? (in which case you're effectively getting a refurb)

If they were never going to ship the 1.67 versions then why announce them to start with? Just curious...

Maybe they just clocled them higher on the motherboards? I am happy for you 1st gen people - hope they're as good as they're advertised!! Just waiting on the Intel iBook. I wonder if this 2.16GHz beats the dual 2.3GHz G5.....ignoring the graphics card.

I think the Mac is going to be big this year and next year

F

 

[gnasher729]

the difference is that a $240 chip is too expensive for a $999 notebook.

if apple gets the chip for $200 (~20% rebate) it might be just cheap enough to put it in a $999 notebook.

so it's more about the absolute price that a duo core can have in order to allow apple to still make money on the ibooks. if the absolute price for the duo core is too high they will have to go single core.

There are four kind of chips Intel is offering for laptops: Celeron M, Pentium M, Core Solo, and Core Duo.

Pentium M has just been made obsolete by Core Duo, which is faster at the same price. Celeron M is cheap, and almost as good as Core Solo. Core Duo is only a tiny bit more expensive than Core Solo, at twice the performance. That is why I don't think there is any chance of a Core Solo; it is the wrong chip if you want a cheap chip, and it is the wrong chip if you want performance.

With today's announcement, it might be just about possible that Apple will ship iBooks with the slowest Core Duo, because they will want a gap between iBook and MacBook Pro, and now they can have that gap. Another possibility is two models; some people want a laptop at the cheapest possible price, and for some the performance is more important. Say $899 and $1099 for basic model with Celeron M and Core Duo. Instead of $1049 for Core Solo.

With these prices, just as an example, I would be very willing to pay $200 extra for Core Duo vs. Celeron M. I would _not_ pay $100 or $150 more for Core Solo.

 

[rog]

Well it's good that you can at least get them faster than in the iMac. I've always thought it was lame that a "Pro" machine was much slower than the current iMac as has been the case since the iMac G5 came out.

 

[reyesmac]

figures

I will not be surprised if upgrades like this happen more often with the intel macs. When Apple announces a machine it is not ready to ship there will be many PC competitors who will make a better spec'd machine at a lower price by the time the Mac comes out. Apple will not be able to get away with slow increases in speed like it could with the PPC's. Now they will have to offer the fastest chips they can buy, at least on their pro machines. I like it.

 

[Svennig]

With these prices, just as an example, I would be very willing to pay $200 extra for Core Duo vs. Celeron M. I would _not_ pay $100 or $150 more for Core Solo.

Amen. Core Duo is a must, and I don't mind if they up the price of the ibooks a tad to make it happen.

 

[Diatribe]

I bet this is the reason:

- 12'' Core Solo MacBook
- 13.3'' Core Duo 1.67 GHz MacBook

Date: April 1st, 2006 - Thirtieth anniversary

Now this would make a lot of sense.

 

[gnasher729]

Maybe they just clocled them higher on the motherboards?

No ****ing way. If Intel sells a 1.83 GHz chip, there is a fifty percent chance that it didn't pass the 2.00 GHz tests, and a considerable chance that it didn't pass those tests in very rare cases only - cases that are rare enough that Apple has no chance of finding them in tests, and often enough for your laptop to crash all the time.

Selling overclocked chips is a recipe for disaster, law suits, and the end of a promising business relationship with Intel.

Remember that Intel knows exactly how many of each chips Apple has bought. If there is anything suspicious, they will buy a laptop or two, and if they find overclocked chips, Apple would be in the deepest trouble you can imagine.

 

[iGary]

Well I guess this is a nice bonus for all those people that pre-ordered!

But it does make me wonder... did they actually build any 1.67GHz models at all and just not ship them - and if so are they now going to be sold off cheaper or through the refurb store? Did they build them as 1.67 and then open them up again to replace the chips? (in which case you're effectively getting a refurb)

If they were never going to ship the 1.67 versions then why announce them to start with? Just curious...

I think it is all marketing.

 

[Subliving]

Thank you Apple

Well, this cements my decision to opt for the MBP instead of the iMac. Thank you Apple for making my mind up for me.

Subliving

 

[Malcster]

Hey hey hey hey hey! What about us poor Brits? Do we have to drag behind with 1.83s??????!!!!

I checked with Apple Uk, my 1.67 has automagically been upgraded to a 1.83, altho an estimated ship date of March 6th..

 

[Peace]

No ****ing way. If Intel sells a 1.83 GHz chip, there is a fifty percent chance that it didn't pass the 2.00 GHz tests, and a considerable chance that it didn't pass those tests in very rare cases only - cases that are rare enough that Apple has no chance of finding them in tests, and often enough for your laptop to crash all the time.

Selling overclocked chips is a recipe for disaster, law suits, and the end of a promising business relationship with Intel.

Remember that Intel knows exactly how many of each chips Apple has bought. If there is anything suspicious, they will buy a laptop or two, and if they find overclocked chips, Apple would be in the deepest trouble you can imagine.

I haven't been around Intel chips for a while but in the old days Intel's fab plants would churn out thousands of chips and run them through tests.Almost all of the time some chips were faster than others and labeled accordingly..Off the same wafer.

It might very well be after rigorous testing Intel found the the speeds were more in line with the 1.83 and 2.0 rather than 1.67 and 1.83..

 

[Cantab]

No, the ones who ordered the very first MacBooks will get them in 1-3 days as well. The difference is that there are thousands and thousands of orders for the other MacBooks, and there were exactly zero backorders for the 2.16 GHz. They don't ship any earlier really, but when you order a 1.83 or 2.00 GHz MacBook right now, you find yourself at the end of a very very long queue. For the 2.16 GHz, you are at the head of the queue.

On the Canadian Apple store site, any customization of the 2.0GHz model -- including downgrading from 1x1GB DIMM to 2x512MHz DIMMs, or pre-installing iWork -- reduces the estimated ship time from 3-4 weeks to 1-3 business days.

Which can't be right, so I think ship times are still in flux.

 

[inkhead]

There are quite a few confused people here, so let me clear up a few things.

1. Intel NEVER MADE A Dual Core 1.67ghz Processor. Ever.

Apple bought 1.8ghz rated chips, which some were considered "to not have baked" to the rated 1.8ghz rating. So Apple decided to underclock them and sell them all evenly as 1.67ghz to ensure consistency. Apple has now figured out however that the chips they bought all work fine at 1.8ghz. Just like the 1.8ghz chips are actually 2ghz chips, and the 2ghz ones will most likely all work at 2.16ghz. You'll easily be ablel to overclock and try this for yourself.

Not only that, the chips in the Mac Book Pro are pin-for-pin compatible with the new 64bit chips shipping in june. Meaning the brave people will be able to buy the chip and upgrade their laptop just like any old windows machine.

 

[TheMasin9]

glad for all macbook buyers

im happy for all you guys who have ordered your macbooks. nice little boost for yall.

 

[Svennig]

There are quite a few confused people here, so let me clear up a few things.

1. Intel NEVER MADE A Dual Core 1.67ghz Processor. Ever.

Apple bought 1.8ghz rated chips, which some were considered "to not have baked" to the rated 1.8ghz rating. So Apple decided to underclock them and sell them all evenly as 1.67ghz to ensure consistency. Apple has now figured out however that the chips they bought all work fine at 1.8ghz. Just like the 1.8ghz chips are actually 2ghz chips, and the 2ghz ones will most likely all work at 2.16ghz. You'll easily be ablel to overclock and try this for yourself.

Not only that, the chips in the Mac Book Pro are pin-for-pin compatible with the new 64bit chips shipping in june. Meaning the brave people will be able to buy the chip and upgrade their laptop just like any old windows machine.

By this logic, Intel never made Celerons which were, afterall, Pentium 4s with defects in the cache or other problems that made them working, but crippled.

 

[Hattig]

There are quite a few confused people here, so let me clear up a few things.

1. Intel NEVER MADE A Dual Core 1.67ghz Processor. Ever.

Apple bought 1.8ghz rated chips, which some were considered "to not have baked" to the rated 1.8ghz rating. So Apple decided to underclock them and sell them all evenly as 1.67ghz to ensure consistency. Apple has now figured out however that the chips they bought all work fine at 1.8ghz. Just like the 1.8ghz chips are actually 2ghz chips, and the 2ghz ones will most likely all work at 2.16ghz. You'll easily be ablel to overclock and try this for yourself.

Not only that, the chips in the Mac Book Pro are pin-for-pin compatible with the new 64bit chips shipping in june. Meaning the brave people will be able to buy the chip and upgrade their laptop just like any old windows machine.

Bull