This possibility has been discussed at length. Does anyone actually read these threads before posting?
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.
MacBook Pro Specs, LightPeak Known As ThunderBolt?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This possibility has been discussed at length. Does anyone actually read these threads before posting?
Dunno where you are living but there are sandy bridge laptops in display of the computer store next to my office
Anyway, reviewers had laptops with these CPUs available on 3rd of January. Read for instance the anandtech, who review a quad core sandy bridge laptop with on-die GPU.
Again: there is no HD3000 as a separate chip, it is part of the sandy bridge CPU!
You do realize this is the base model we're talking about? If Apple sells a $1000-1200 base with a Core i5, 4GB, and Thunderbolt port standard, it is a major upgrade. There will be pricier options with better screens and SSD.
Remember, 320GB SSDs are exorbitant right now. Other World Computing sells a replacement 320GB SSD for the Air that is over $1000. Even a 128GB SSD sells for about $250 right now. Apple needs something that has lots of storage for those in the $1000-1200 price range. A standard SSD won't fit that bill (though 8-16GB of SSD is still a possibility at that price point).
What did they change?
-> An minor cpu bump (it won't make that much of a difference)
-> Slightly faster ram (but with higher latency)
-> Crappier graphics
-> Lame 1280x800 resolution
-> And an port that nobody uses.
If I had money now I would buy the actual model (at an discount price since the new ones are coming).
Explain why we all seem to cope fine without having disturbing impulses to stick a fork in denoted USB ports then?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Check the benchmark for the Sandy Bridge quad core i7. They are integrated and show on par performance with a QUAD CoRE...
macguy360 said:
Check the benchmark for the Sandy Bridge quad core i7. They are integrated and show on par performance with a QUAD CoRE...
Why dont they just take a picture of the machine, instead of lousy pictures of a port I wont be using?
My thoughts exactly...maybe they have an email from Steve confirming:
"Dear Steve,
I was wondering if you could confirm the leaked MBP images as being real or not. As an Apple supporter I want to thank you so much for your continued passion and excellence in the field on consumer computing. Also, Im nominating you in a grass roots effort to win the 2012 presidential election. Lastly, If you were a bird...what bird would you be? Warm Regards
PS: Killer Whale vs. a Great White Shark...thoughts?
-Jo"
"Images are real.
-Steve"
Am I the only person who LOVES reading Steve's super concise emails?
This is not a minor CPU bump. If you follow CPU trends you'll realize this CPU will be roughly twice as fast as the outgoing Core2Duo (at CPU intensive tasks like SuperPi - I agree that for most people the jump won't seem like double, but definitely still noticeable).
Dunno where you are living but there are sandy bridge laptops in display of the computer store next to my office
Anyway, reviewers had laptops with these CPUs available on 3rd of January. Read for instance the anandtech, who review a quad core sandy bridge laptop with on-die GPU.
Again: there is no HD3000 as a separate chip, it is part of the sandy bridge CPU!
Bah I guess your right. I was under the impression the initial HD3000 tests were done with penryn processors but it turns out HD3000 came out with sandy bridge in January. It looks like it will be a 10% reduction in gaming speeds vs 320m. I would be interested to find out if there is anything that can be done to help speed that up though. Maybe higher performance ram, considering the FSB is going up by 333mhz from last gen MBP the ram might be a possible bottleneck.
The intel graphics isn't on par with the 320m. That and the resolution are deal killers for me.
I really don't get this.
Why does everyone in this thread seem to think that this configuration sucks?
Yes, yes... I know why. It did not meet up to your highly set expectations after the last days crazy rumors.
I LIKE it! (Honestly. I am not trolling! I do not game, so that might explain some of it...)
Yesterday everyone said C2D was a stone age tech. Today the SB i5 is worse?
Unbelievable...
Intel HD 3000 (or what ever it is called) is comparable to the 320m. What you get instead is much better battery time. Is that such a strange trade off?
Personally I am fine with the screen resolution. It might be possible that higher screen res is on the higher tier 13" or possibly a BTO option for those who really need it.
I suspect that some need it just because the MBA has it...
If this configuration is true I will be a happy owner of the 2011 MBP 13" in the near future!
Why does everyone in this thread seem to think that this configuration sucks?
Yes, yes... I know why. It did not meet up to your highly set expectations after the last days crazy rumors.
I LIKE it! (Honestly. I am not trolling! I do not game, so that might explain some of it...)
Yesterday everyone said C2D was a stone age tech. Today the SB i5 is worse?
Unbelievable...
Intel HD 3000 (or what ever it is called) is comparable to the 320m. What you get instead is much better battery time. Is that such a strange trade off?
Personally I am fine with the screen resolution. It might be possible that higher screen res is on the higher tier 13" or possibly a BTO option for those who really need it.
I suspect that some need it just because the MBA has it...
If this configuration is true I will be a happy owner of the 2011 MBP 13" in the near future!
At least it's an i5. Finally.
The screen res sucks considering the Air's.
4GB standard ram finally but this is a pro machine so 8GB standard?
No SSD+HDD hybrid as per rumors? (maybe for 15")
SuperDrive? Although I dont expect a bluray in there you'd think they'd give up on that naming convention for a standard DVD burner...
Im sure Intel HD graphics works well, but 384MB is a bit measly.
And thunderbolt port? Givemeabreak! Even 'firewire' sounded awesome. They should call it something like 'firewire extreme' because at least that sounds Apple-esque plus they can keep the naming convention with version numbers for the near future e.g. firewire extreme 2.0...
The screen res sucks considering the Air's.
4GB standard ram finally but this is a pro machine so 8GB standard?
No SSD+HDD hybrid as per rumors? (maybe for 15")
SuperDrive? Although I dont expect a bluray in there you'd think they'd give up on that naming convention for a standard DVD burner...
Im sure Intel HD graphics works well, but 384MB is a bit measly.
And thunderbolt port? Givemeabreak! Even 'firewire' sounded awesome. They should call it something like 'firewire extreme' because at least that sounds Apple-esque plus they can keep the naming convention with version numbers for the near future e.g. firewire extreme 2.0...
Pretty much sums it up for me. That and the cheek Apple will have to wax lyrical about the "advances" it has made.
Seems to me the good old days of true innovation has gone the way of Steve Job's first liver. Apple's typical MO these past few years can be summed up by the one-step forward, two steps back approach, style over substance (instead of 'with') and vacuous marketing puff (the "magical" iPad).
lol minor CPU bump... it's much more more than a minor bump. Hyper threading, do any video encoding? yeah it will destroy the C2D. Actually anything cpu intensive the i5 SB will have it's fun even over the 2.66Ghz $1500 C2D model. And we don't even know the pricing here, if it's $1100 as rumored, that's very good. With turbo boost also don't forget, this SB i5 will be on par with the i5-520m that's found in the current $1800 15" MBP... but if the C2D suits you, then go for it.
MBP chip speculation
This CPU cannot be an i5 unless intel are making a specific CPU for the MBP. The only mobile dual-core Sandy Bridge CPU at 2.3 GHz is the i7-2649M at 25W (check mobile processors at ark.intel.com if you don't believe me). It would make sense that this MBP is a slightly higher spec as the only other non-embedded mobile CPU at 25W is i7-2629M at 2.1 GHz. Apple have never in the past used different CPU & GPU power rated MBP's in the past, so this is the logical conclusion.
From deduction, the newer MBA released this year will most likely us the 17W Sandy Bridge processors, which would be a 13W reduction in TDP over the current 11" and 20W reduction over the current 13". This is assuming the integrated 320M has a TDP of 20W, (only reference wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units).This is measuring the CPU + iGP as 10 + 20 for the 11" and 17 + 20 for the 13". In short, this will mean a lot less heat output of the MBA as well as massive battery life.
For the 13" MBP, these will have no discrete GPU so the power would be 25W compared to the current 45W for CPU + iGP, which will basically mean massive battery life.
For the 15" MBP, they will almost definitely use the 35W chips i5-2520M, i5-2540M, i7-2620M at 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 GHz respectively. Depending on the GPU, they could also go with some of the i7 quad cores (eventually). Again, those likely are at 45W (unless they go with the i7-2920XM 2.5GHz at 55W, very unlikely). The 45W quad core chips would be i7-2630QM or i7-2635QM at 2GHz (the i7-2635QM has slightly faster graphics turbo, 1.2 vs 1.2GHz) the i7-2720QM at 2.2 GHz and the i7-2820QM at 2.3 GHz.
These quad-core chips will rock and possibly will go with the 17". If they put the i7-2720QM in, it would make sense, as it's rather cheap comparing to current CPU prices and also it would blow the iMac i7 and also most of the MacPro CPUs out of the water. The 2820QM and 2920XM would be nice, but are definitely ever more overkill and are much more expensive.
The current 15" MBP highest spec chip has a 1k unit price ~$350 the i7-2720QM is $378. The 1k unit price of 2630/35 isn't yet shown in ark.intel so can't really compare those.
This CPU cannot be an i5 unless intel are making a specific CPU for the MBP. The only mobile dual-core Sandy Bridge CPU at 2.3 GHz is the i7-2649M at 25W (check mobile processors at ark.intel.com if you don't believe me). It would make sense that this MBP is a slightly higher spec as the only other non-embedded mobile CPU at 25W is i7-2629M at 2.1 GHz. Apple have never in the past used different CPU & GPU power rated MBP's in the past, so this is the logical conclusion.
From deduction, the newer MBA released this year will most likely us the 17W Sandy Bridge processors, which would be a 13W reduction in TDP over the current 11" and 20W reduction over the current 13". This is assuming the integrated 320M has a TDP of 20W, (only reference wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units).This is measuring the CPU + iGP as 10 + 20 for the 11" and 17 + 20 for the 13". In short, this will mean a lot less heat output of the MBA as well as massive battery life.
For the 13" MBP, these will have no discrete GPU so the power would be 25W compared to the current 45W for CPU + iGP, which will basically mean massive battery life.
For the 15" MBP, they will almost definitely use the 35W chips i5-2520M, i5-2540M, i7-2620M at 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 GHz respectively. Depending on the GPU, they could also go with some of the i7 quad cores (eventually). Again, those likely are at 45W (unless they go with the i7-2920XM 2.5GHz at 55W, very unlikely). The 45W quad core chips would be i7-2630QM or i7-2635QM at 2GHz (the i7-2635QM has slightly faster graphics turbo, 1.2 vs 1.2GHz) the i7-2720QM at 2.2 GHz and the i7-2820QM at 2.3 GHz.
These quad-core chips will rock and possibly will go with the 17". If they put the i7-2720QM in, it would make sense, as it's rather cheap comparing to current CPU prices and also it would blow the iMac i7 and also most of the MacPro CPUs out of the water. The 2820QM and 2920XM would be nice, but are definitely ever more overkill and are much more expensive.
The current 15" MBP highest spec chip has a 1k unit price ~$350 the i7-2720QM is $378. The 1k unit price of 2630/35 isn't yet shown in ark.intel so can't really compare those.
Last edited:
Nope. I just expected it to be competitive with a $600 Acer. It falls far short.