Sorry to disappoint you again, but sandy bridge does not offer USB 3.0, its still old USB 2.0
Anyway, if Thunderbolt is Light Peak, you won't be needing any USB 3.0. There will surely be Light Peak to USB 3.0 adapters and similar.
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
Sorry to disappoint you again, but sandy bridge does not offer USB 3.0, its still old USB 2.0
Anyway, if Thunderbolt is Light Peak, you won't be needing any USB 3.0. There will surely be Light Peak to USB 3.0 adapters and similar.
Just another port
Great now we have even more ports. I guess one more ugly hole on the side of the mac.
I would rather have seen USB3 incorporated since there are plenty of things already coming out for it even cameras. Still I guess we will have to wait and see if this takes off on the PC side or just another port only on Apple computers.
Great now we have even more ports. I guess one more ugly hole on the side of the mac.
I would rather have seen USB3
incorporated since there are plenty of things already coming out for it even cameras. Still I guess we will have to wait and see if this takes off on the PC side or just another port only on Apple computers. I am not disappointed with this config.
I don't need a great GPU on a laptop, so the HD3000 might be good enough. Gaming is for desktops, my opinion at least.
High-resolution doesn't bother me either, I would find my self squinting on that high of a resolution. Besides I am planning to plug my 13' MBP to a large display (not ACD) so it won't be a bother.
I am really happy with an i5 Core. I was thinking we would see an i3.
All that aside, I would really like the rumoured Boot SSD drive or whatever it is called. That would be kind of nice.
I don't need a great GPU on a laptop, so the HD3000 might be good enough. Gaming is for desktops, my opinion at least.
High-resolution doesn't bother me either, I would find my self squinting on that high of a resolution. Besides I am planning to plug my 13' MBP to a large display (not ACD
) so it won't be a bother.I am really happy with an i5 Core. I was thinking we would see an i3.
All that aside, I would really like the rumoured Boot SSD drive or whatever it is called. That would be kind of nice.
Sorry to disappoint you again, but sandy bridge does not offer USB 3.0, its still old USB 2.0
Anyway, if Thunderbolt is Light Peak, you won't be needing any USB 3.0. There will surely be Light Peak to USB 3.0 adapters and similar.
Wow, well this is just garbage then.
Wow, way to disappoint...
I know I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up but...
HD 3000??
1280x800??
Seriously?
I didn't realize I was in the market for a bargain $399 pc...
Are you ****ing kidding me? Please, please please link me a $399 PC with i5 sandy bridge CPU please. PLEASE. And 1366x768 isn't that much better than 1280x800. Both resolutions suck. But any Acer type computer cannot compare to the screen quality of the MBP 13".
Light Peak is, but I was on about USB3.0 ports. So as you said gogo adapter because Apple have decided not to use the demo'd ports and connectors.
It's a MAJOR CPU bump. It's like the difference between a Pentium II and a PowerPC G3. Remember megahertz myth? Just because a Core 2 Duo operates at 2.6GHz doesn't mean it's faster than a Core i5 at 2.3GHz. The Sandy Bridge Core i5 is almost twice as fast because it can process more per clock cycle than a Core 2 Duo.
The RAM goes from 1033MHz to 1.33 GHz, and there is no more front side bus, so there is LESS latency.
There likely will be a 13" model with a 1400x900 display. This is the base, remember.
No one uses Thunderbolt NOW, but that was the same with USB when Apple first released it. This potentially is a far more compelling upgrade than USB 3.0 would be.
Just to be clear, there are several advantages:
Basically: better cabling, less crosstalk, longer distance, and up to 100gb vs 10gb data.
http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/12/13/rumor.has.intel.using.copper.light.peak/
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-light-peak-will-run-on-copper/1216
http://www.tested.com/news/how-copper-wiring-will-affect-intels-light-peak-tech/1620/
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/1...lementation-on-copper-not-yet-on-fiber-optic/
Yeah, it's not like anyone needs more than 1280x800. That's just for WinBlows specs-whores
Seriously though. My 2cents:
MBA11 and MBA13
MBP13,15,17
MB gets dropped for low spec MBP13 with 1280x800, and 1440x900 BTO.
If a 13" 1440x900 matte comes to light, I will consider.
The Thunderbolt symbol is stupid - looks too much like the "ESD" symbol.
Although Displayport technology and cables do have tons of BW, at least on paper, and they are "cheap" and packet based, so it's not that far fetches to use this as a unifying port.
You guys know more than me about this stuff I guess. I just thought the new boards supporting the processors would have USB 3.0 as standard. Didn't know they had to be modified to support it.
Great now we have even more ports. I guess one more ugly hole on the side of the mac.
I would rather have seen USB3
Actually, it will get Thunderbolt instead of the basic mini-displayport, so it's the same number. I'm a bit surprised they didn't drop FireWire, but that will likely go in time if Thunderbolt takes off.
Wrong. Ivy Bridge at the earliest.
Current Sandy Bridge desktops and laptops have custom chipset solutions to enable USB 3.0, nothing directly from Intel.
This thread proves a long-thought point of mine.
To paraphrase Jorge Valdano...
"The response to new Apple Mac products is made up of subjective feeling, of suggestion and, in that, MacRumors is unbeatable.
Put a "piece of human faeces" hanging from a stick in the middle of this passionate, crazy internet forum and there are people who will tell you it’s a work of art.
It’s not though. It’s still a "piece of human faeces" hanging from a stick.”
To paraphrase Jorge Valdano...
"The response to new Apple Mac products is made up of subjective feeling, of suggestion and, in that, MacRumors is unbeatable.
Put a "piece of human faeces" hanging from a stick in the middle of this passionate, crazy internet forum and there are people who will tell you it’s a work of art.
It’s not though. It’s still a "piece of human faeces" hanging from a stick.”
The thing that really annoys from this leaks is Apple using Intel official logos, they're awful.
No surprise on the specs, we're talking about a 13" model and an i5 is WAY MORE than I expected.
Currently, I own the 2010 entry level 13" model, now looking forward to get the all new 15" and replace the Superdrive with an extra hard drive (no SSD for me yet), I really don't see apple getting rid of those Superdrives yet.
No surprise on the specs, we're talking about a 13" model and an i5 is WAY MORE than I expected.
Currently, I own the 2010 entry level 13" model, now looking forward to get the all new 15" and replace the Superdrive with an extra hard drive (no SSD for me yet
), I really don't see apple getting rid of those Superdrives yet.
No one is pointing out that we can't see the name of the laptop. It could be the new 13" MB. The 13" MBP could have higher specs.
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)
It's kind of Intels fault for not having USB 3. I guess they'd rather have ThunderBolt =]
macguy360 said:
It's kind of Intels fault for not having USB 3. I guess they'd rather have ThunderBolt =]