Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air Models Scheduled for Launch This Month?

GTWH said:
I think, from what has been said in other threads, there may not be a big difference in the performance of C2D and Core i CPUs, the difference maybe in power consumption. I haven't looked at iMac spec/prices so not sure how these compare to MBPs.
Click to expand...

I have a 24" iMac with a 2.8GHz Dual Core C2D & 4GB of RAM.

I built a Hackintosh with a 2.66GHz Quad Core i5 & 4GB of RAM.

The i5 absolutely smokes the C2D.

When using the CS4 suite, its performance is amazing, which I don't know why they don't use them as the base processor in the iMac. It's an option, and a damn good option to get too. Same with video encoding, the i5 just flies. I can't wait for CS5 to fully take advantage of OS X's power, I can only imagine it will be even better.
 
ckelley said:
I have a 24" iMac with a 2.8GHz Dual Core C2D & 4GB of RAM.

I built a Hackintosh with a 2.66GHz Quad Core i5 & 4GB of RAM.

The i5 absolutely smokes the C2D.

When using the CS4 suite, its performance is amazing, which I don't know why they don't use them as the base processor in the iMac. It's an option, and a damn good option to get too. Same with video encoding, the i5 just flies. I can't wait for CS5 to fully take advantage of OS X's power, I can only imagine it will be even better.
Click to expand...

I think the comparison was for dual core mobile i5s and C2Ds not quad core i5s.
 
ckelley said:
I have a 24" iMac with a 2.8GHz Dual Core C2D & 4GB of RAM.

I built a Hackintosh with a 2.66GHz Quad Core i5 & 4GB of RAM.

The i5 absolutely smokes the C2D.

When using the CS4 suite, its performance is amazing, which I don't know why they don't use them as the base processor in the iMac. It's an option, and a damn good option to get too. Same with video encoding, the i5 just flies. I can't wait for CS5 to fully take advantage of OS X's power, I can only imagine it will be even better.
Click to expand...

Wow. Just to be clear though, I just learned that there's a difference between quad core i5 and dual core i5. The MBPs are expected to contain Arrandales - mobile i3,i5,i7 dual cores. That must be it. Your Hackintosh would also smoke the new MBPs. a current iMac might not be a bad bet, but oh man, why not offer an i5 quad core 21" iMac?

*EDIT what GTWH said*
 
GTWH said:
I think the comparison was for dual core mobile i5s and C2Ds not quad core i5s.
Click to expand...

I understand this, the chips and their utilizations are different, but from my last generation desktop C2D to a current generation desktop i5, it gets smoked. Yes, it's quad core vs. dual core, but Apple never shipped a Mac with a Core2 Quad but they do ship the iMac with the same i5 750 processor I have in the Hackintosh. See here for performance differences between a 2.4C2D & the 2.6 i5:

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/11/12/quad.core.imac.near.3x.faster.than.past.gen/

Everywhere you go though, the reviews show the i5/i7 line fly past the Core2 Products they're replacing, and when the Quad Cores enable Turbo Boost, they're even better. I can't imagine the mobile versions won't offer this kind of performance increase.

I'm an Apple aficionado, I love my Macs (the 24" iMac, the 3.06GHz MacBook Pro that I ordered and am waiting on and hoping is delayed because new product is coming out), but I just found it downright disgusting that for $800 I bought and built a computer that's running OS X flawlessly that just screams in power and performance, easily taking on the heaviest of tasks that I'd require a Mac Pro for. Here's to hoping that the MacBook Pro line gets these i5 & i7 chips soon.

In all honesty, I think the i5's should go for the 15" and possibly the 13"'s, and the i7's for the 17". BTO configs for the 15" can snag an i7, but I think it should go 13" = i3, 15" = i5 with i7 BTO on high end, and 17" with Quad Core i7. Seems perfect to me.
 
ckelley said:
I understand this, the chips and their utilizations are different, but from my last generation desktop C2D to a current generation desktop i5, it gets smoked. Yes, it's quad core vs. dual core, but Apple never shipped a Mac with a Core2 Quad but they do ship the iMac with the same i5 750 processor I have in the Hackintosh. See here for performance differences between a 2.4C2D & the 2.6 i5:

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/11/12/quad.core.imac.near.3x.faster.than.past.gen/

Everywhere you go though, the reviews show the i5/i7 line fly past the Core2 Products they're replacing, and when the Quad Cores enable Turbo Boost, they're even better. I can't imagine the mobile versions won't offer this kind of performance increase.
Click to expand...

Ok, I get what you mean, now. Hopefully you are right about the mobile versions.
 
ckelley said:
I understand this, the chips and their utilizations are different, but from my last generation desktop C2D to a current generation desktop i5, it gets smoked. Yes, it's quad core vs. dual core, but Apple never shipped a Mac with a Core2 Quad but they do ship the iMac with the same i5 750 processor I have in the Hackintosh. See here for performance differences between a 2.4C2D & the 2.6 i5:

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/11/12/quad.core.imac.near.3x.faster.than.past.gen/

Everywhere you go though, the reviews show the i5/i7 line fly past the Core2 Products they're replacing, and when the Quad Cores enable Turbo Boost, they're even better. I can't imagine the mobile versions won't offer this kind of performance increase.

I'm an Apple aficionado, I love my Macs (the 24" iMac, the 3.06GHz MacBook Pro that I ordered and am waiting on and hoping is delayed because new product is coming out), but I just found it downright disgusting that for $800 I bought and built a computer that's running OS X flawlessly that just screams in power and performance, easily taking on the heaviest of tasks that I'd require a Mac Pro for. Here's to hoping that the MacBook Pro line gets these i5 & i7 chips soon.

In all honesty, I think the i5's should go for the 15" and possibly the 13"'s, and the i7's for the 17". BTO configs for the 15" can snag an i7, but I think it should go 13" = i3, 15" = i5 with i7 BTO on high end, and 17" with Quad Core i7. Seems perfect to me.
Click to expand...

Yikes, Can you cancel your MacBook Pro order? :confused:
 
ckelley said:
I understand this, the chips and their utilizations are different, but from my last generation desktop C2D to a current generation desktop i5, it gets smoked. Yes, it's quad core vs. dual core, but Apple never shipped a Mac with a Core2 Quad but they do ship the iMac with the same i5 750 processor I have in the Hackintosh. See here for performance differences between a 2.4C2D & the 2.6 i5:

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/11/12/quad.core.imac.near.3x.faster.than.past.gen/

Everywhere you go though, the reviews show the i5/i7 line fly past the Core2 Products they're replacing, and when the Quad Cores enable Turbo Boost, they're even better. I can't imagine the mobile versions won't offer this kind of performance increase.

I'm an Apple aficionado, I love my Macs (the 24" iMac, the 3.06GHz MacBook Pro that I ordered and am waiting on and hoping is delayed because new product is coming out), but I just found it downright disgusting that for $800 I bought and built a computer that's running OS X flawlessly that just screams in power and performance, easily taking on the heaviest of tasks that I'd require a Mac Pro for. Here's to hoping that the MacBook Pro line gets these i5 & i7 chips soon.

In all honesty, I think the i5's should go for the 15" and possibly the 13"'s, and the i7's for the 17". BTO configs for the 15" can snag an i7, but I think it should go 13" = i3, 15" = i5 with i7 BTO on high end, and 17" with Quad Core i7. Seems perfect to me.
Click to expand...

I'd quite like to see the 13" get the i5 mostly because I will either go for the 13" or 15" and I would like the choice of the same spec with screen size being the only difference. This will be my first Mac and I'll be hoping for about 4 years of use out of it.
 
ckelley said:
I understand this, the chips and their utilizations are different, but from my last generation desktop C2D to a current generation desktop i5, it gets smoked. Yes, it's quad core vs. dual core, but Apple never shipped a Mac with a Core2 Quad but they do ship the iMac with the same i5 750 processor I have in the Hackintosh. See here for performance differences between a 2.4C2D & the 2.6 i5:
Click to expand...

True, but the iMac never had a desktop C2D . . . it was a mobile chip. In the end, any desktop chip is going to smoke a laptop variant. Not to mention a quad core desktop vs. a dual core laptop.

In all honesty, I think the i5's should go for the 15" and possibly the 13"'s, and the i7's for the 17". BTO configs for the 15" can snag an i7, but I think it should go 13" = i3, 15" = i5 with i7 BTO on high end, and 17" with Quad Core i7. Seems perfect to me.
Click to expand...

Same here. I'd love for Apple to have a REAL high end 17" laptop based on hardware as opposed to price.

GTWH said:
I think they are probably desktop i5s because or mobile i7s, according to Intel's website, they only do mobile dual core i5s. see link below.

http://www.intel.com/en_uk/consumer/products/processors/corei5-specs.htm
Click to expand...

Aiden never mentioned that they were i5 or i7, just that other vender sell quad core mobile laptops with quad core laptop chips.

There was a time when some laptops did have desktop quad core chips, 4 RAM slots, 2 mobile GPUs, 21" screens, and 10 minutes of battery life. Now, many of the quad core mobile laptops are more within the realm of being a mobile machine. They are still around 10 lbs., but that beats carrying around the 40-50 lbs workstation any day.
 
AidenShaw said:
If your OS has reasonable support for resolution independence, it's fine.

I have a T61p with 1920x1200 15.4" screen, and it's fine. I've set text to 125%, so things are easy to read. Lightroom and Photoshop, though, let me see photos in the same resolution as my desktop. Far better than the "wide screen" fraud of 1440 by 900.

Higher resolution *is* better - if you OS can support it and selectively change the size of text and UI elements appropriately. Apparently, your OS does not.
Click to expand...

Why someone that uses pc and bashes continuously mac lives every day of his life in a mac forum?
i mean, i really dont get it
your life really has to suck
no friends? no other interests in your life that wasting your time trolling in a mac forum trying to vilfy mac products celebrating pc junk?
oh well
 
kobewankenobi2 said:
Why someone that uses pc and bashes continuously mac lives every day of his life in a mac forum?
i mean, i really dont get it
your life really has to suck
no friends? no other interests in your life that wasting your time trolling in a mac forum trying to vilfy mac products celebrating pc junk?
oh well
Click to expand...

C'mon, as OSX users we really don't have to argue about operations systems... everyone who uses it knows... there is no alternative so just don't listen to not enlightened PC geeks...
 
kobewankenobi2 said:
Why someone that uses pc and bashes continuously mac lives every day of his life in a mac forum?
i mean, i really dont get it
your life really has to suck
no friends? no other interests in your life that wasting your time trolling in a mac forum trying to vilfy mac products celebrating pc junk?
oh well
Click to expand...

I have asked myself this question many times and came to the same conclusion: They must have no life at all... :p Most of the people here come here to share or get some info, etc but then there are people who seem to get a kick out of it to give 'contra' - no matter what :rolleyes:

As an average (and open minded) mac user I find silly fanboism annoying - but equally annoying are those one sided flavored contra-contributions here by some persons, who apparently feel the need to prove something. It gets so tiring and boring because of the predictability :rolleyes: Sometimes they have a point but very often, especially from one "famous" person here, the postings are quite silly, really, so don't take it too seriously :p
 
i keep checking back to see if there are any new rumours. i wish i was more confident at hackintoshing...
my best effort is a mini10v, but thats just a play toy. i need a real machine.
 
offwidafairies said:
i keep checking back to see if there are any new rumours. i wish i was more confident at hackintoshing...
my best effort is a mini10v, but thats just a play toy. i need a real machine.
Click to expand...

I hear you. I hackintoshed a Mini10v but found its touchpad to be almost unusable. Some people end up putting a thin piece of tape at the bottom so as not to inadvertently move the cursor when you are clicking. It's keyboard beats a Dell Mini9 easily but that darned touchpad...
 
instaxgirl said:
I badly want them to bring back the black Macbook.

Coolest computer I have ever seen.
Click to expand...
I wish I would've held onto mine. Had no clue they would be discontinued until after I sold it. :(

odinsride said:
Please DON'T give us higher resolution displays for the 15" MacBook Pro. Or at least keep the option to choose a 1440x900 display.

I prefer not squinting all day long.

Kthxbai :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Many years ago, I had a Dell Inspiron 8600 (15") with a 1920x1200 display. To this day it floors me that I STILL can't get that pixel density in an Apple laptop (6+ years later).
 
Digital Skunk said:
True, but the iMac never had a desktop C2D . . . it was a mobile chip. In the end, any desktop chip is going to smoke a laptop variant. Not to mention a quad core desktop vs. a dual core laptop.
Click to expand...

My iMac does indeed have a desktop C2D.

According to iFixit it is the E7600 which is an LGA 775 (socket T) processor.
 
Dlit said:
I had a lunch break with Steve Jobs today and he said, "What's a Macbook Pro? Don't you want an iPad? It's got a 9.7" screen and..."
Click to expand...

Actually, it would have been along the lines of: "You WANT an iPad." rather than "Don't you want an iPad?" Think of the statement when you order at McDonalds / Burger King - :"You WANT fries with that."
 
iMav said:
I wish I would've held onto mine. Had no clue they would be discontinued until after I sold it. :(


Many years ago, I had a Dell Inspiron 8600 (15") with a 1920x1200 display. To this day it floors me that I STILL can't get that pixel density in an Apple laptop (6+ years later).
Click to expand...



I've supported people who liked 640x480 resolution just for the huge icons. In windows 7 they finally have the option of super high resolution and big icons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back