I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade here, I'm just as anxious about a new MBP model as much as the rest of you guys, but there is something that's not adding up spec wise, the memory in particular. Similarly spec'd machines with core i5 /i7 have DDR3 Memory running at 1333 mhz as opposed to 1067. I would imagine that new MBPs would take advantage of the faster memory
Real world it doesn't matter. Most systems are shipping with 1066 right now, though a few are doing 1333. (One system I'm looking at right now lists 1066, but actually people are receiving 1333.)
unless you're doing something that takes advantage of 8 threads, I think you'd prefer to have the extra 1000mhz, wouldn't you?
No. In the first place, it's pretty common to be using more than 2 threads on a system. In the second, even if you're only running 2 heavily, the speed difference won't be major since the quad core chip will be overclocking itself quite a bit.
Here are the specs:
So, basically the supposed new MBP is actually the higher end of the Core i7 processor because it uses the latest processors that are just 32nm wide (which was built on the 45nm and 65nm processors).
No, that dual core 'i7' is the lowest end of all the mobile parts labeled i7.
Actually I should mention-another issue with these dual core Nehalam parts is they no longer have on-die memory controllers. It's been moved back off of the CPU, and onto the GPU. Memory performance is still supposed to be better than Core 2, but much worse than the true Nehalam parts with integrated memory controllers.
I'm a little disappointed with Intel's new mobile chip lineup. After mobile processors being nearly as fast and feature compatible as desktop counterparts for the last few years, I was expecting quad cores to be the norm.
Yeah, I was disappointed too. They switch to 32nm, and I assumed the obvious place that needed improvement were the quads...but they're making us wait on those, for stripped down dual core versions.
32 core Nvidia parts seem to run it pretty nicely. Not maxed out, but at a medium resolution and with lots of settings on medium if not high.
I think you might be the exception to the rule. Most people buy laptops for their portability. However, for this to be useful it must have decent battery life. I would gladly give up some CPU power in in exchange for longer battery life for the simple reason that a slower working computer is better than a faster one w/ a dead batt. & no available A/C power. I don't think I'm alone here.
Probably not, but I want power. I've never used my current laptop on battery (except when I accidentally forgot to plug it in for an hour :-D ) I need portability to transport it between work and home every day, but I don't use the battery for anything more than a UPS.
I've read almost every page of this thread, and one person said the i7 arrandale is better then the i7 clarksfield.....is that true?
No. It's completely false. The arrandale chips aren't BAD, but the quad core ones are considerably more powerful over all.
Does any other computer maker (HP, Sony, etc) use the i7 arrandale chipsets?
Yes. Everyone else has been using arrandale CPUs for a month now, and many have been using the true quad core i7s for longer than that.
I guess those manufacturers found a way to make it happen, then.
I haven't heard of any reports of machines not booting, exploding, or creating rifts in the spacetime continuum when four sticks of RAM are used, so I'm not worried.
Me neither. Asus has some cheap systems with four RAM slots too, and I've never heard of issues. I just assumed it was the same as desktop motherboards where you install them in pairs for dual channel. If it's a hack, I didn't realize it.
I think the same thing went through a lot of people's minds. Now, that being said. i7 4 core Clarkdale from Intel is a 45nm transistor, and the leaked spec. shows 32nm Arrandales (32nm transistors are built on 45nm), so this is the new generation processor (even though it is dual core), faster processing, more battery life and less heat.
Less heat and longer battery life probably than the quads (similar to the Core 2s they're replacing), but they're also less powerful. If you want a high-end notebook, you want a quad core i7. Or heck, even a Core 2 quad would be preferable from what I've heard. That's reflected by what Intel charges for these CPUs too.
and since when more cores = better cpu , in a notebook ?
Since quad cores were introduced in notebooks.
absolutely wrong !
Current C2D's tdp is 25W ....
Some are 25, some are 35 as I recall.
Sorry but if you think Clarksdale will appear in ANY Macbook Pro, it won't. It cost too much for Apple and it also runs WAY too hot, it'll also suck the battery dry in no time, basically totally against everything Apple is trying to do.
It doesn't cost too much. You can get a quad i7 notebook starting at $900 right now. They could put it in the base Macbook if they wanted to. It is probably too hot though, given Apple's obsession with looks over performance.
Best place for Clarksdale is in an Alienware, and speaking of them, the new M11X is bloody nice and it has the GT335M Nvidia in it with 1GB of ram, so I full expect the new MB Pro's to have better.
I don't. They picked kind of a low end by all standards, and mid range by notebook standards GPU back when the 8600GT was first used...and then they kept using versions of it for years. I don't think it's completely out of the realm of possibility, but I think it's more likely we'd see something like a 48 core GPU (or the Ati equivalent).
Should ANY of the MBP lineup refreshes ship with a core i3 that'll be a slap in the face! All the competition is shipping mid/top end range with Core i5/i7 minimum (unless thin & light is used in the design).
It's ALREADY a slap in the face. I mean look at what they're selling now. i3 will be a step up. You're already paying a HUGE premium for OS X either way.
can someone break this information down for someone who doesnt understand anything being said so far. upgrade for dummies?
i just recently had my macbook destroyed by liquid damage and im looking to get the new macbook pro 13inch. I use it for web browsing, some photoshopping, and movies. would it benefit me to wait on this update, (i am looking to get something as soon as possible, but will wait if it benefits me).
Personally I'd say if you can, wait. We're past due for updates. We're a month past Intel's newest chips, and Apple is the only one left to update. I'd really think it could be any day now, though these things can be random, and it wouldn't shock me a ton if it was two months from now...or tomorrow.
But I'd hate to buy an old one now with the new ones potentially days away, and at worst probably months.
GTS 360M looks alright
*dreaming*
Yeah, and you can get THOSE in systems starting at $1200 :-/ Core i7 quad AND Geforce GTS 360 for $1300 if not a bit less.
I actually don't follow laptop GPUs too closely unfortunately. I do know that laptops intended to be mobile workstations need a lot more than a 9600GT can pony up though. Apple's really skimping on GPU, compared to many other companies. Hopefully they'll hit all the needed performance aspects rather than adding something arbitrary...blu-ray comes to mind.
Well I want Blu Ray too. I use an external drive now, but most of the stuff I rent is on Blu Ray, except for older things where it's not available.
Constrained on i7 perhaps by the price point that Intel wants. If significantly higher than what was asking for old CoreDuo part then Apple will skip it.
They're not. Systems half the price use them. Systems cheaper than the Macbook use them.
ftw