I want the 17". To me the extra screen real estate trumps the decreased portability. Plus I want the ExpressCard slot. All in all if the new MBPs were identical except for screen size I'd still choose the 17".
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.
New MacBook Pro 6,1 on Geekbench!!
- Thread starter Steve Mobs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I want the 17". To me the extra screen real estate trumps the decreased portability. Plus I want the ExpressCard slot. All in all if the new MBPs were identical except for screen size I'd still choose the 17".
If this is true numbers compared to the leaked rumored ones then STEVE REALLY MEANT " WE'RE TAKING Macs TO THE NEXT LEVEL" Do you realize that if Apple did this then they're really caring less and less about desktops period! Hello Xenon 17"Macbook Pro lol
My enthusiasm has just been shattered
As I said way back in this thread, it proves processor can't be faked. Anything the OS reports can be faked. But the CPUID is straight from the hardware. Whoever did this either had a real MBP or actually had a Hackintosh with an i7 620M and not many OEMs are shipping that processor yet. Lenovo just started selling it last week. HP was selling it with the ENVY 15 but pulled it. Dell seems to only go as high as the i5 540M.
For comparison I ran Geekbench on my 2007 MBP (never ran it before)
Geekbench Score 2907
Version Geekbench 2.0.19
Platform Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
Operating System Mac OS X 10.6.2 (Build 10C540)
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7400 @ 2.16GHz
Model MacBook Pro (Core 2 Duo)
Memory 4.00 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
Geekbench Score 2907
Version Geekbench 2.0.19
Platform Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
Operating System Mac OS X 10.6.2 (Build 10C540)
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7400 @ 2.16GHz
Model MacBook Pro (Core 2 Duo)
Memory 4.00 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
Really? So the MBPs are somehow going to incorporate a colorless, odorless heavy noble gas?
It is faster than Current 21.5" iMac
hmmm, iMac (desktop) needs Core i5 Quad cores
how can a laptop is faster than desktop, hmmm do not put SSD also it will easily beat 21.5" iMac on every aspect.
hmmm, iMac (desktop) needs Core i5 Quad cores
how can a laptop is faster than desktop, hmmm do not put SSD also it will easily beat 21.5" iMac on every aspect.
Even though LP was demonstrated on a MacPro class machine, I think its main driver is iPad. iPad plug real estate has to be leveraged and since Touch OS is full MacOS with a different GUI, it wouldn't hurt for iPad to be able to talk with a variety of devices with a single dongle, aka dock. I suspect the first iPad will have a Geekbench score of a 2007 MacPro or a 2008 iMac.
Rocketman
Really? So the MBPs are somehow going to incorporate a colorless, odorless heavy noble gas?
If Godfather Steve says so lol
Not only that, it's also faster than the i7 720QM everyone here wants to see in the MBP
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=Core+i7+Q+720&commit=Search
IMHO they should leave the black keys for the glossy models and should go back to silver keys for the matte version (or fit the matte version with a black bezel).
Power consumption and heat. But maybe Apple will surprise us here.
The 620M is a dual-core CPU, the 720QM is a quad-core CPU.
The reason why the quad-cores are clocked so low compared to the dual-cores are, again, power consumption and heat. Furthermore the quad-cores are manufactured in 45nm (compared to 32nm for the newer CPUs) which makes them consume even more power.
The 620M and the 720QM are completely different CPUs, but in terms of performance there's not really that much difference since the 620M, while having only half the number of cores, can clock much higher under full load than the 720QM can.
I don't think it's too bad. When Arrandale was launched I've read comparisons where the i5-540M was ~30% slower than an i7-720QM. The i7-620M that will probably end up in the MacBook Pro has higher clock speeds and more cache than the i5 they tested, so the difference will probably be quite a bit smaller. In some benchmarks (like Geekbench, as posted above) the 620M is even faster than the 720QM, although I don't know how much Geekbench takes multithreading into account.
Last edited:
CPU is nice, but I'm more concerned with GPU for games and with OpenCL, for the future also. Hopefully, Apple avoids nVidia's latest 300M series rebrands. ATI's Mobility Radeon 5650 should be a minimum, which with it's 15-19W TDP will be cooler than the 9600M GT and 8600M GT's 23W TDP. The Mobility Radeon 5750 would be ideal with a 24W TDP, but using GDDR5 for double the memory bandwidth. Sadly, due to lack of motherboard space forcing Apple to only use a maximum of 4 VRAM chips, we'll probably still be stuck with 256MB and 512MB VRAM options using the latest 1Gb chips.
Oh, I would not support Apple using the 1.6GHz Core i7 720QM. It's maximum turbo mode with 2 cores is only 2.4GHz, which means for the average user who's software would be dual core optimized at best, the Core i7 720QM could be slower than the higher end previous generation Core 2 Duos even with Nehalem's architectural improvements. If Apple were to offer a quad core, it'd have to be only the 1.73GHz Core i7 820QM probably as a BTO on the 17". The Core i7-920XM Extreme Edition would of course be too hot.
Oh, I would not support Apple using the 1.6GHz Core i7 720QM. It's maximum turbo mode with 2 cores is only 2.4GHz, which means for the average user who's software would be dual core optimized at best, the Core i7 720QM could be slower than the higher end previous generation Core 2 Duos even with Nehalem's architectural improvements. If Apple were to offer a quad core, it'd have to be only the 1.73GHz Core i7 820QM probably as a BTO on the 17". The Core i7-920XM Extreme Edition would of course be too hot.
Toshiba Tecra A11-S3540 -- 24 in stock here.
And there's several benchmarks @ Geekbench for Core i7 620M systems.
It's not always about hardware specs or Geekbench scores. The useful capability of the device is also defined by the maximum number of practical tasks, battery life, video resolution capacity, etc. Just saying you want X graphics and Y processor is in no way an integrated answer.
If you have ever looked at the specs of an iPhone, they are VERY crippled. An iPad as currently envisioned is a 1 Ghz, 4 core, integrated graphics, low bandwidth wireless interface device, with a 4:3 1280x800 display. That's so 90's.
If Version 2 simply has Light Peak, a discreet graphics co-processor, dual channel 802.11n, the whole experience will improve dramatically. From being able to view streamed HD 3D movies, to dock loading a full HD movie in a small number of minutes, rather than a large number, and battery life approaching all-day.
It's not about hardware specs per-se. It is about an integrated solution with capabilities, that taken together, appear to be magical.
With low priced crippleware. Steve wants you to subscribe to and buy everything, through him.
Hi Steve.
Rocketman
If you have ever looked at the specs of an iPhone, they are VERY crippled. An iPad as currently envisioned is a 1 Ghz, 4 core, integrated graphics, low bandwidth wireless interface device, with a 4:3 1280x800 display. That's so 90's.
If Version 2 simply has Light Peak, a discreet graphics co-processor, dual channel 802.11n, the whole experience will improve dramatically. From being able to view streamed HD 3D movies, to dock loading a full HD movie in a small number of minutes, rather than a large number, and battery life approaching all-day.
It's not about hardware specs per-se. It is about an integrated solution with capabilities, that taken together, appear to be magical.
With low priced crippleware. Steve wants you to subscribe to and buy everything, through him.
Hi Steve.
Rocketman
I don't see how. It's highly unlikely that Apple could fit more than 2 RAM slots in something as packed as the MacBook Pro and I don't know of any common notebook with more than 2 RAM slots. With prices for 4GB SODIMMs still high, any 8GB SODIMMs, if they exist, would be obscenely expensive. A single 8GB DIMM is pretty much unknown in consumer desktop. I think 2x4GB max will be the norm at least until next year.
Just out of curiosity
.... What's wrong with 8GB Ram in a Notebook?? Are you really doing those type of tasks to justify more then 8GB Ram?? Are you aware of the financial ramifications if more ram were to be added for such a notebook at todays current prices??
The future CPU parts are easy to figure out. The difficultly is what to do for the GPU. Calling a notebook a "pro" with intel's awful integrated GPU would be a joke.
The key is Nvidia's new switchable Optimus 40nm 40 "CUDA core" GPU that I think loses its NDA this upcoming week - Feb 8-12 - based on a well placed source. For comparison, the 9400M only has 16 "CUDA cores". It will be designed to use as little power as possible, especially when the Intel GPU is suitable for 2D use like internet and video decoding, so it doesn't have a huge impact on battery life.
13" MB (possibly not released until May along with new MBA, possible lower price)
$999 - 2.26Ghz Core i3 350M (w/ Intel GPU)
13" MBP
$1200 - 2.4Ghz Core i5 520M + Nvidia "Optimus" tech
$1500 - 2.53Ghz Core i5 540M + Nvidia "Optimus" tech
15"
$1600 - 2.53Ghz Core i5 540M + Nvidia "Optimus" tech
$2000 - 2.53Ghz Core i7 620M + real discrete GPU (Nvidia 335M, or ATI 5650M)
17"
$2500 - Core i7 620M + real discrete GPU
Plus BTO options of better GPUs
The key is Nvidia's new switchable Optimus 40nm 40 "CUDA core" GPU that I think loses its NDA this upcoming week - Feb 8-12 - based on a well placed source. For comparison, the 9400M only has 16 "CUDA cores". It will be designed to use as little power as possible, especially when the Intel GPU is suitable for 2D use like internet and video decoding, so it doesn't have a huge impact on battery life.
13" MB (possibly not released until May along with new MBA, possible lower price)
$999 - 2.26Ghz Core i3 350M (w/ Intel GPU)
13" MBP
$1200 - 2.4Ghz Core i5 520M + Nvidia "Optimus" tech
$1500 - 2.53Ghz Core i5 540M + Nvidia "Optimus" tech
15"
$1600 - 2.53Ghz Core i5 540M + Nvidia "Optimus" tech
$2000 - 2.53Ghz Core i7 620M + real discrete GPU (Nvidia 335M, or ATI 5650M)
17"
$2500 - Core i7 620M + real discrete GPU
Plus BTO options of better GPUs
Out of Date Much?
I just ran Geekbench on all the computers in my household, and I badly need this new Macbook Pro if this score is true. lol
Dell Inspiron 1520 (2005): 2529 (broken trackpad)
Dell Inspiron 1525 (2007): 2096 (anomaly problem with the screen)
Dell Dimensions 4500 (2001): 685 (this score explains itself)
I just ran Geekbench on all the computers in my household, and I badly need this new Macbook Pro if this score is true. lol
Dell Inspiron 1520 (2005): 2529 (broken trackpad)
Dell Inspiron 1525 (2007): 2096 (anomaly problem with the screen)
Dell Dimensions 4500 (2001): 685 (this score explains itself)
"optimus tech" isn't a video card, it's simply the ability to automatically switch between discrete and onboard graphics depending on the requirements, and perhaps use both for heavily graphic dependent applications. so basically Optimus requires both onboard and discrete graphic solutions.