Why? Have you actually seen the processor specs from Intel? The base 15" may very well have a i5 but no way do I expect to see the actual useful 15" machines with nothing less than an i7 quad core.
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
Why? Have you actually seen the processor specs from Intel? The base 15" may very well have a i5 but no way do I expect to see the actual useful 15" machines with nothing less than an i7 quad core.
They haven't been stuck at ~10% market share at all. It wasn't too long ago that Apple had a ~3% share.
Considering there is no mobile quad core i5 period, I'll take my chances tomorrow.
the graphics are not better than the 2010 model?I'm actually excited about this base 13" model. It improves on pretty much everything my current 2010 13" MBP has.
Slightly better graphics, much better processor, better Webcam, better Hard Drive, "Thunderbolt" Port
I'm not whining about the price/specs. I just WANT the OPTION to spend more.
For a base model, at $999, I agree - that MBP looks pretty decent. But I'd GLADLY spend ~$1400 for the same i5, same battery, and same enclosure; but also with a high-res matte screen and a decent (read, upgrade from the GT220) GPU. That's it. So, no, that doesn't make me a cheapass, or "entitled". I'm willing to drop about four hundred (!) dollars on two upgrades that would likely cost Apple less than $75.
Right now, Apple seems to have *close* to the perfect laptop for me. 12 hour battery? Awesome. New i5, recently-released CPU? Great! New I/O, bigger trackpad, and that same, awesome 13" formfactor? Sign me up! But why, oh, why, do they have to ruin it with that terrible resolution and utterly crap GPU?
For a base model, at $999, I agree - that MBP looks pretty decent. But I'd GLADLY spend ~$1400 for the same i5, same battery, and same enclosure; but also with a high-res matte screen and a decent (read, upgrade from the GT220) GPU. That's it. So, no, that doesn't make me a cheapass, or "entitled". I'm willing to drop about four hundred (!) dollars on two upgrades that would likely cost Apple less than $75.
Right now, Apple seems to have *close* to the perfect laptop for me. 12 hour battery? Awesome. New i5, recently-released CPU? Great! New I/O, bigger trackpad, and that same, awesome 13" formfactor? Sign me up! But why, oh, why, do they have to ruin it with that terrible resolution and utterly crap GPU?
Overall gaming performance is essentially equal at both medium and low settings in those benchmarks although some games favor one or the other more dramatically. IN other words mostly a sideways move with gpu.
REAson for HD3000 paired with i5 in low end MBP is battery life gains. They are best in class. In some usage cases provide an extra hour of battery life according to Anandtech's benchmarks. And that's with the i7. Battery life for i5 will be better. Maybe that's where the 12 hours of battery compared to 10 hours before comes from?
So the tradeoff Apple made here is to keep gpu roughly the same while getting much better battery life and much faster cpu.
Last edited:
You're not going to see ANY quad-cores. Period.
There are no quad core sandy bridge parts that will fit in the power envelope of these systems.
Moving on...
Gaming on a Mac is an excercise in masochism that I do not wish to partake in.
It begs the question, is OS X or Windows the luxury there?
Can you hit 1280 x 1024 at 75 Hz? Maybe 60...
If you're buying a 13" MBP for Dragon Age II, you need to rethink that strategy. There hasn't really ever been a "gaming" capable 13" MBP, sure it will "play" games just not very well i.e. smooth, high settings, how it's meant to be played. They aren't gaming machines, the consoles have that pretty locked down in the low end price points.
To sum up, playing games on a crippled laptop is like watching a blu-ray movie on your 17" CRT from 1995. Sure it works but it ain't pretty.
Orr..... it's because the Intel tech is that new, they want to 'WOW' buyers.? idk..
Ok, I'm confused now. Does the 2010 or 2011 model have the better graphics chip???
I've seen different opinions in this thread.
That is with architectural changes. You'll see FPS different in between AMD and Intel CPUs too. However, with processors from the same family (dual and quad core), very few games take advantage of 4 cores sufficiently to show a difference in benchmarks.
Here's an example of old Core 2 Duo's vs. Core 2 Quads in the same setup:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/9
FPS performance difference is nominal.
At framerates that drop below 30 fps. That's like arguing how fast a car is without wind resistance. It's not a realistic usage scenario.
A personal attack doesn't help your case.
here are som real benchmarks http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html
Go down the list and press on compare, intel hd 3000, 50% worse peformance then a 320m
First of all, notebookcheck is an unreliable source. It's often impossible to find their test setups, benchmarks used, etc.
Second, let's look at those numbers (all lowest playable res):
- black ops: 41% worse
fifa 11: 26% worse
starcraft 2: 12% worse
metro 2033: 4% better
BFBC2: 11% better
COD MW2: 19% worse (yet somehow the 325M is worse than the 320M?)
Risen: 20% better
RE5: 39% better
Dirt 2: 3% better
Anno 1404: 37% worse
Sims 3: 4% better
FEAR 2: 7% worse
Left 4 Dead: 33% better
Far Cry 2: 12% better (and the 325M is magically better than 320M again)
Trackmania: 53% worse
COD4: 17% worse
Supreme Commander: 46% better
Crysis: 15% better
World in Conflict: 6% worse
Half Life 2: 34% better
Quake 4: 31% better
World of Warcraft: 2% worse
Counter-Strike Source: 20% better
Doom 3: 38% better
Quake 3 Arena: 52% worse
For an average of: 1.5 % better than the 320M. If you agree with this result, you acknowledge they are similar. If you do not agree with this result, then you agree with my original premise that notebookcheck is unreliable.
The question is whether or not the GPU performance is comparable to previous gen. The answer is unequivocally yes. Now, if you want to talk about what the new MBP could have, there's no question that a 420M or similar product would eat the HD 3000's lunch.
I'm not so sure it's really that thin.. If you compare size to the 13 in. pro, they're the same..
It's probably the new Macbook replacement.
I agree. Honestly, I don't have a gaming PC because:
1. My gaming needs are very much satisfied with a console
2. I can't afford a decent gaming rig
With regards to the MBP, I actually liked this update. I don't do any graphic intensive stuff frequently. The i5 and a better battery life are just what I wanted. I won't be upgrading now because my 2010 13 incher still works perfectly, and this upgrade certainly isn't worth giving up on my 9 month old computer. Well, 2012, I'll be waiting!