No MBP 13" until i core series!

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Iphone3gs, Jul 30, 2010.

?

Will only get the MBP 13" when Icore 13 available

  1. Yes

    37 vote(s)
    37.4%
  2. No

    50 vote(s)
    50.5%
  3. Other- please state

    12 vote(s)
    12.1%
  1. Iphone3gs macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #1
    No MBP 13" until i core series!

    So who else is waiting for an icore series at least an icore 13 series like the new imacs have and the MBP 15" and 17" having an i5 and i7 series.

    Petition no Macbook Pro 13" until they put an icore 13 and an anti-glare option.
     
  2. Nice macrumors regular

    Nice

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    #2
    I have a MBP 13, the 2009 model, an I wanted to upgrade the 2010 model when i saw the new graphics card, but the C2D is the biggest downside, so Ill wait :)
     
  3. kasakka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #3
    The i3 wouldn't be any faster than the C2D...

    The 13" could use a higher resolution display but that's about it.
     
  4. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #4
    i3 chips are far faster than C2D's in several tasks, in others not so much. It's sort of becoming an urban myth that they're the same performance wise, but that doesn't make it true. Check out the Geekbench results for the new i3 iMacs. They're a good bit faster than the previous C2D generation. There's no way that's down to just a faster graphics card.
     
  5. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #5
    Those are DESKTOP i3s. NOT MOBILE. Anyone who is begging for a Core i3 over a C2D on the MBP13 is simply uneducated about the subject. I suggest reading the numerous threads on the subject.
     
  6. bigjobby macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #6
    how long are you willing to wait?... that should be the question. It could be a long one.
     
  7. tim100 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    #7
    when

    how long will it take. apple either needs to redesign the 13 inch or intel and nvida need to settle there dispute.
     
  8. Hisdem macrumors 6502a

    Hisdem

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2010
    Location:
    Boca Raton, FL
    #8
    I still think the 2.66GHz C2D on the MBP 13" is way underestimated.
     
  9. bigjobby macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #9
    God only knows... or does he?
     
  10. jclardy macrumors 68040

    jclardy

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    #10
    The mobile core i3 macbooks would be faster if they put discrete graphics in them, which they would have to unless Intel is able to up their graphics chip to the level of the 320M, or even just the 9400M.

    I'm going with a 15" i7 for now. I would consider the 13" if it had discrete graphics + higher resolution screen. 1440x900 would work for me on a 13".
     
  11. lilcosco08 macrumors 65816

    lilcosco08

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton
    #11
    It's going to be a LONG TIME until the i13 cores are released
     
  12. steeex macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #12
    ok, this has been extensively debated many times...

    the only reason for apple not sticking an iX processor in the 13" MBP is due to...licensing...

    Intel doesn't allow third parties to build integrated GPUs on their new Core iX motherboards.

    Apple (like everybody else) is stuck with Intel's own "HD" integrated GPUs. Of course they are free to use discrete ones, as they do on the 15" and 17".

    Intel's present day integrated GPUs should be labelled as "worse than anthrax".

    There is physically no room to put a discrete graphic on the 13". Other manufacturers have done it on their 13" - true - but their chassis are like swiss cheese and in any case not nearly as thin as the MBP. Assuming they can "magically" manage to squeeze one in, the laptop will become a furnace.



    Nevertheless, the question "when does Apple dump the C2D" is not quite easy to answer. In my view there are different scenarios:
    • Waiting until the next processor line (and I think this is what is more likely going to happen...)
    • Intel rethinks about the licensing. It could happen, who knows...but I doubt that nVidia or ATI have preventivly kept the development of an integrated GPU up to date in this remotely possible eventuality...
    • Apple dumps the optical drive (finally!)
    • Intel makes better GPUs
    • Apple dumps Intel
    • The mobile G5 is finally released :D

    my suggestion is: enjoy the weekend, celebrate its beginning with a brand new 13" MBP. It's a very nice machine...


    :eek:
     
  13. Celticsun macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    #13

    There was me thinking it was a question of space on the logic/mobo for both the pants discrete graphics chip and the 320M :confused:
     
  14. C64 macrumors 65816

    C64

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    #14
    Read the rest of his post :)

    I agree with steeex that it's in part a manufacturing problem, but I also think that the current C2D models shouldn't be underestimated, only because they have a C2D and not the hype-of-the-moment i-series CPU. For the majority of the 13" owners/buyers (and that what Apple is aiming at) the C2D has more than enough processing power, and even though it'd be really nice to say you have an i3 processor, the difference isn't all that big. Like Apple said: "We chose killer graphics plus 10 hour battery life over a very small CPU speed increase. Users will see far more performance boost from the speedy graphics." Given the Intel/GPU problems, I think this was a good choice.

    Having that said, for people who want to upgrade to a 13" and already have an older C2D it can be hard to justify buying another C2D years after they bought their current one. This is in part a valid point, because although slower, a C2D 2.0GHz from 3+ years ago isn't that much slower than the current C2D 2.4GHz base model. On the other hand, the "i3" is getting more and more of a hype word without people actually knowing the real difference between that and the current C2Ds. And as always with Apple, there's more to its machines than a comparing a few specs. The unibody case, glass trackpad, LED screen, backlit keyboard, etc. are all worth going for the current 13" MBP.

    The downside of all this is that it leaves a relatively small group of customers who want the best of the moment in the 13" enclosure, and they are simply out of luck and should either wait, go for the 15" or buy another brand.
     
  15. tim100 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    #15
    i think your right.
     
  16. demonsavatar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    #16
    Screen resolution really killed it for me. 1280 x 800 = blah. They need 1440 x 900 at least and preferably anti-glare. Got myself a 15" (see sig)
     
  17. C64 macrumors 65816

    C64

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    #17
    Just returned a 15" HR AG, absolutely hated it. Guess it's not for everyone. But it would be nice to see Apple offering some more options for the 13" screen as well.
     
  18. Iphone3gs thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #18
    Thanks for the replies guys...

    Now to choose between MBP 13"and MBA.....!!!

    Shall i wait for the update for the MBA...to be...rumoured 11.6"...or get a MBP...mmmhh
     
  19. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #19
    It's hard to add in Core iX processors because Intel put the IGP graphics chipset in there as well. It takes up space and performs like complete ___ (fill in the blank). It's not a problem for the 15" MBPs because they have space to put in a discrete graphics chip. Until Intel and NVIDIA work out their quarrels over licensing issues, I still vote for C2D + 320M. That combo performs better overall than Core i3 + IGP.

    btw, Core i3s don't perform noticeably better than C2Ds. This is for mobile like a previous poster pointed out. The Core i3 iMacs have discrete graphics compared to the C2D + integrated graphics before. That also skews the benchmarks. By itself, C2D performs just a tiny bit slower than Core i3. Not enough to sacrifice the 320M graphics for an IGP.
     
  20. tiwizard macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    #20
    The MBP is already pretty thin and light... If you think about it, the iPad's screen is almost the size of the rumored MBA. That is TOO small for me. Plus, the lack of ports/disc drive are slightly disappointing.
     
  21. DanMacApple macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    #21
    The current 13 MBP really has a good amount of speed for the average user as an i3 is not that big of an update to wait for.
     
  22. stefan1975 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #22
    killer graphics, where are they? is there a MBP13 that i missed that actually *does* have a decent non-shared GPU?
     
  23. alectheking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    #23
    I thought about the i series processor, and decided just to buy the current gen MBP 13 under education store and sell off the ipod. After that I got it brand new for about 950. I'm going to stick a intel ssd G3 in it later this year and i figure the next mbp update will be lacking, possibly just an i3 which I will pass unless they add such things as USB 3, but im not holding my breath for that until the revision after next at which time i will splurge.

    edit: oh yeah, and it needs a retina display.
     
  24. kny3twalker macrumors 65816

    kny3twalker

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    #24
    This thread is not for you to justify the $300 you spent on a 10% clock speed increase.

    That said I would not mind an anti glare display at the same current 1280x800 resolution.
     
  25. jim468 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    #25
    Being a computer science major graduate student, I feel that it is not an easy choice to make.

    After eagerly waiting for this year's iteration, I was very optimistic that Apple would work out a way to squeeze in the i-core chips for 13" MBP. I have read the articles that explain their reason for not making the move, that being, the physical limitation of space on the small motherboard. However, Intel did design the Small Form Factor (SFF) Core 2 Duo chips for MBA to address a similar situation. They may do something similar with MBP 13".

    Having said that, new things will keep on evolving and there will always be something better coming up. I think I would just go with it and buy the 13" as the pleasure of using the machine will easily outweigh the pain of waiting for the next iteration whose timeline is not certain. It may be this October, or December, or even April next year...

    Also, I feel, the base model of 13" will only be "marginally" better than the base model of its next iteration. (e.g. new base model iMacs with i3... link: http://www.macworld.com/reviews/product/586734/review/215inch_core_i3_imac306ghz.html. If we ignore the discrete graphics card and only consider the cpu performance, it is not a major performance bump.)
     

Share This Page