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
Please read what you wrote. You keep saying it is underpowered. You keep saying things like I just wanted something decent.
You keep exaggerating.
Quit being so dramatic. It's going to be a great machine whether you want one or not.
The gpu will get a bump because of i5 and 384mb video ram. HD3000 itself is a 320M equivalent.
The move here is obvious now. Apple chose i5/HD3000 over i3/dedicated vid card because it provided the most bang for the buck. MOre so when battery life, heat managemet and internal space are considered.
And newsflash no one else gets to order their MBP the exact way they want it either. So cry me a river.
I believe we are going to hit 5 years later in 2011 on our wait for mobile quad core Macs. This all started with Gilo rumors after Merom launched.
Why is that?
I thought the Mac Mini would be the best Mac for Thunderbolt because it sits on the desk and doesn't have alot of storage and of course needs its own monitor.
For upcoming iOS devices though Thunderbolt will be sweet no matter what Mac you have.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but 1280x800 is the standard resolution for a Dell E6510. So, that's a 15" screen with 1280x800. You can get higher, but you have to pay for it.
1280x800 seems to be the default resolution for a 16x10 laptop screen regardless of size. 1366x768 for 16x9 screens.
I've always wanted 1440x900 in my 13" Apple laptop screens, and since they have it in the MBA, it's probably coming to the 13" MBP, too. I can't say that I have any true need for it, though.
Nor do I have any need for an i3/i5/i7. I just don't do anything with heavy processing needs.
Total guess here, but after using a 11" MBA briefly (Mac and Win 7), I'd bet that the majority of laptop users would notice the most performance improvement from an SSD than any other upgrade. But I'm just making wild guesses.
base machine should be 320gb. the current price upgrade from 320gb HDD to 128gb SSD is $300 on apple's site. If the average price for 128gb SSD is around 225-275 on newegg, plus tax and shipping if applicable, not to mention the install time and amount of time to reinstall all the software and everything again.......... I think $300 is not THAT bad.
BUT! If the upgraded 13 Pro comes with higher res screen and 128gb SDD as standard at the $1499 starting price (wishful thinking), it'll be my next purchase.
Last edited:
Apple's Moves
Now that OS X rocks the house, here is my fear---
Basically if you want OS X you have to buy Apple HW. That is a basic monopoly on users that want OS X. So, they now have the option, if they choose to begin to do what monopolies do: extend prices and margin because they can. They can ship HW that on a cost per component basis is far inferior to competitive markets, ie PCs. This divergence has not happened in a real sense yet...but with Steve (I will build great products leaving the building) Jobs and Tim (Gross margins) Cook taking the helm, I have a sense of worry...
It really is a beautiful corporate goal, create a mini-monoploy that is way below the DOJ threshold (PCs are still 90% of the market) by creating a beautiful OS, then extending HW margins by shipping cheaper machines to the OS X addicted (count me in).
There is a reason Apple has margins that other HW manufactures can only dream of...lets hope they keep this to a minimum though..
Now that OS X rocks the house, here is my fear---
Basically if you want OS X you have to buy Apple HW. That is a basic monopoly on users that want OS X. So, they now have the option, if they choose to begin to do what monopolies do: extend prices and margin because they can. They can ship HW that on a cost per component basis is far inferior to competitive markets, ie PCs. This divergence has not happened in a real sense yet...but with Steve (I will build great products leaving the building) Jobs and Tim (Gross margins) Cook taking the helm, I have a sense of worry...
It really is a beautiful corporate goal, create a mini-monoploy that is way below the DOJ threshold (PCs are still 90% of the market) by creating a beautiful OS, then extending HW margins by shipping cheaper machines to the OS X addicted (count me in).
There is a reason Apple has margins that other HW manufactures can only dream of...lets hope they keep this to a minimum though..
I really experience a nerdrage when I read stuff like that. Why won't people just start using their head before writing such stupid things? The m11x has no optical drive and is about twice as thick as the 13" MBP. Of course it can fit a dedicated card! Look at the 13" MBP teardown pictures: there is just NO ROOM to fit a dedicated card. The mainboard is already as small as it gets, you can't just slap another huge chip + VRAM + support circuitry, its a physical impossibility.
Again, for all you folks that whine about Intel graphics. Yes, its crap, but:
1. There is NO OTHER integrated graphics option for newer intel CPUs, as Intel forbade other companies to make chipsets for their CPUs
2. There is NO ROOM (physically) in a macbook 13" to fit a dedicated graphics chip - refer to the teardown videos. Fitting such a chip woudl require more space which means either increase the laptop dimension/weight, or drop the optical bay/HDD/battery.
Hence, Apple offers the best graphics it can without compromising the macbook core design (slim, small, light and great battery). I'd love to see them drop the optical and offer better GPU instead, but I guess it won't be happening anytime soon. Anyway, the HD3000 is enough to play games at native resolution and low-medium settings. If you want more, get a windows machine or an MBP 15"
I stopped reading when you analogized a company being the only company to sell a particular product to a monopoly. If you want a BMW, you have to buy one from BMW. If you want a Big Mac you have to buy one from McDonalds. If you want a Coke you have to buy one from Coke. None of these are monopolies.
If the HD 3000 performs better than the 320m, I will definitely eat my words and apologize.
Now what about that screen resolution?
And sorry but I'm allowed to express my opinion that this is an underwhelming update wether you like it or not
If this causes you to rage you might want to think about switching to decaf. I looked it up and the m11x is 3/10" thicker than the MBP, nowhere near double. Stop being so hyperbolic.
But you're right; it doesn't have an optical drive. I wish Apple would do likewise and then have room for a dedicated GPU
LightPeak/Thunderbolt data rate
Maybe I missed it, but does anyone know the data rate on LightPeak or Thunderbolt? I was only curious, because if say MiniDisplayPort were to be used for data, it could handle 17Gbits/s or just over 2GB/s, which seems pretty respectable to me. Info, Ideas?
Maybe I missed it, but does anyone know the data rate on LightPeak or Thunderbolt? I was only curious, because if say MiniDisplayPort were to be used for data, it could handle 17Gbits/s or just over 2GB/s, which seems pretty respectable to me. Info, Ideas?
That's an interesting point, however I thought that since the HD 3000 is now integrated on the same die, it left enough extra space for a dedicated GPU?
As far as power management goes: what about graphics switching?
I think folks lose sight of the fact that Apple aren't a bunch of idiots.
Yes they like to make a nice margin on their machine. But it's maybe 20%.
What is 20% of $1200? $220. Let's consider that Windows OEMs make maybe 5% margins. That's would be $60 on $1200 pricepoint.
That means you are paying $160 more for your Mac than you would a Windows OEM would have to sell it for. Ok OEMs also can lower the price more with bloatware.
I noticed pcs sold through MS come with no bloatware and fully configured with latest updates for an extra $100.
So you're paying an extra $260 at most for your $1200 MBP with its build quality and no bloatware and updates installed etc.
I haven't put a price on OSX or included Mac software like iPHoto/iMOvie etc. Nor on Apple support which is US based and gets highest marks in all studies by large margins for years now. Nor have I put a price of lack of anti-virus or anti-spyware needed or hassles thereof.
Yes they like to make a nice margin on their machine. But it's maybe 20%.
What is 20% of $1200? $220. Let's consider that Windows OEMs make maybe 5% margins. That's would be $60 on $1200 pricepoint.
That means you are paying $160 more for your Mac than you would a Windows OEM would have to sell it for. Ok OEMs also can lower the price more with bloatware.
I noticed pcs sold through MS come with no bloatware and fully configured with latest updates for an extra $100.
So you're paying an extra $260 at most for your $1200 MBP with its build quality and no bloatware and updates installed etc.
I haven't put a price on OSX or included Mac software like iPHoto/iMOvie etc. Nor on Apple support which is US based and gets highest marks in all studies by large margins for years now. Nor have I put a price of lack of anti-virus or anti-spyware needed or hassles thereof.
10Gb/s was the number Intel was throwing around for the copper lightpeak implementation.
Definitely agree with the above.
However, IMHO, I think half the fault for the coming 13" MBP not getting a decent GPU even though it comes with a powerful Core i5 CPU has to go to Intel for being a big, fat A** H***!
I personally feel that they're the ones to blame for being overly greedy by preventing & not granting Nvidia licenses for making chipsets that can include the Core i CPUs. If Intel hasn't done so, we would probably continue to get 13" MBPs with Nvidia chipsets that come with the Core i CPUs & upgraded Nvidia integrated GPUs! That would have been improvements to both the CPU & GPU.All I know is if the 13" keeps the 1280x800 resolution, I'll be getting an Air. I have 1920x1200 on my 15" right now and there's absolutely no way I can go back to that resolution. Tried it twice and couldn't do it.
These specs make sense (although the screen specs don't), but there's one thing that bothers me: the Thunderbolt icon. This is a very obvious cheap button you can design yourself by folowing multiple tutorials on the web. Check this tutorial and compare the glare.
So the Thunderbolt icon is either very poorly designed, or it's fake.
So the Thunderbolt icon is either very poorly designed, or it's fake.
I think Apple perhaps could have went dedicated gpu but then they probably would have put an i3 in the 13" MBP instead of the i5.
I think they decided i5/HD3000 was best bang for the buck over the i3/dedicated gpu given what their customers do with their machines, the price, battery life, internal space and heat management.
The fact that iPad is getting a media event shows how much of a joke these new Macbook Pros are..
enough said! I'm out
enough said! I'm out
Good point.
Why would I need Thunderbolt? I'm good with USB 3.0 and a lower price. For every so called "extraordinary", "revolutionary", "genius" technology, we will pay more.
HA! Tell me about it. EeePCs have about three of them on a 10.1" body. Plus the HDMI, VGA, SD slot and a headphone jack.
Agreed, and it's very sad. I have a C2D 17" that I really do want to keep for as long as possible, or until something that's actually a decent upgrade comes along.
I can get my hands on workstations for the heavy lifting and encoding, and/or i don't mind waiting a few extra hours for an encode. If it wasn't for the software I use (FCP, Aperture, and a few other Mac specifics) I'd jump at that M6500.
I hate to admit it but I have to agree.
It seems like Apple doesn't give a damn about the MBPs any more.... They seem to be more enthusiastic about the iOS devices.... There are basically two OS platforms. If you want to use OS X, it must be on Apple hardware - which if they choose can increase margins per machine as a result - and they do. Compare AAPL margins vs. any other HW manufacturer. My point was they are NOT considered a monopoly legally, but to me, and probably you, we are beholden to their decisions, ie C2D for four years or 1280 x 800, no USB 3, no BluRay, etc.
As OS X gets better, and my tolerance to switch becomes nil, the problem is exacerbated...You can choose Windows. I find it terrible, basically unusable.
Anyway, its an interesting conundrum...
As OS X gets better, and my tolerance to switch becomes nil, the problem is exacerbated...You can choose Windows. I find it terrible, basically unusable.
Anyway, its an interesting conundrum...