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.
Prepare to flame: A more realistic 2012 MBP predictions
- Thread starter Prodo123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 15" and 17" currently both use a 85W adaptor... I don't get how the 15" doesn't have the wattage when it uses the same power source.
I really like the idea of having 2 hard drives - 1 SSD for the operating system and critical programs, and a normal HD for storing all your other stuff. Seems like it would really be the best of both worlds.
Who here uses both in your computer and what are your experiences with it? Troublesome? Any issues we should take note of?
Who here uses both in your computer and what are your experiences with it? Troublesome? Any issues we should take note of?
I am a professional web developer. I am waiting for SSD to become more reliable (no SSD yet seems to be without problems) and cost effective.
I do want one though as even with my Quad Core Macbook pro with 8GB of RAM I have so many things running that the system groans as it is forced to use the swap file a lot. With an SSD the swap file would load data in and out 50x faster because random access with an HD is so very slow as the r/w arm has to physically zip across the surface of the disc platters. The SSD electronic seek time is several orders of magnitude faster.
An SSD is not a panacea of speed but for running multiple applications, booting the OS, loading programs, opening files, saving documents/ photos, importing video/photos, file transfer etc The SSD will improve things.
I think the statement, "Real speed is from the CPU and GPU." Is more fallacious than the statement that an SSD will speed up your computer. As where an SSD will improve very general tasks that everyone does as listed above, and everyone has experienced waiting time for, the CPU and GPU speed increases only effect you on CPU/GPU intensive tasks. CPU performance is fast enough now that for web browsing, opening and closing applications and performing basic photo editing that most CPUs are indistinguishable in use from the generation before.
Here is a workflow of a professional where the CPU and GPU plays a back seat:
Boot up computer - SSD
Open Dreamweaver - SSD
Open photoshop - SSD
Open Netbeans - SSD
Upload files to net - SSD
Open multiple psd files - SSD
Open multiple web windows - SSD
RAM fill swap file now being used - SSD
move layers around on large psd - SSD (surprising but yes SSD here the most important as if you run out of RAM the document will need to be loaded back in from the swap. I have to wait for this all the time)
Save photos - SSD
Save documents - SSD
Shutdown computer - SSD
Just as a note I like having the latest fastest CPU + GPU for encoding, advanced photoshop tools, video editing etc. But its not a huge deal for your average day in the office.
----------
I see. I just read the first page, didn't see the page 2-3.
You seem to have defined a professional as only those professionals who need CPU + GPU. I think its just a question of terminology and semantics as your post basically said the same thing as I posted in mine. I would say that the statement:
"For video editing and animation professionals CPU + GPU is more important for speed than an SSD."
Would be a more accurate way of saying it. As there are a host of other computer based professions where the R/W speed of the SSD will be the bottleneck.
I honestly wait longer for a 5-minute 480p YouTube video to be converted from AVI to MP4 via Handbrake (55 seconds) than the time it takes for me to load a 18MP RAW photo in Photoshop (32 seconds). And I have a 500GB HDD (albeit 7200RPM). Exporting that file to PSD takes around 1.5x as long, which is still a relatively short amount of time. An Intel SSD would shave off ~10 seconds or so. It takes ~30 minutes to roughly edit the photo itself, which completely nulls the benefit of having a SSD.
Also, my computer wakes up instantaneously from sleep, and takes around 5 seconds to go to sleep.
I don't know if I have an excessive amount of patience, but I see no benefit whatsoever from getting a SSD unless it's used for programming, other than a negligible cut in load time.
edit: this is a reply to whitedragon101
why would you shutdown your mac? I only ever do it when I board a plane.
Anyways, I agree with you. Most Mac users would benefit more from a SSD for their day to day work, unless it is something that is particularly demanding on the GPU/CPU.
What I would expect from a macbook pro redesign:
- less weight
- equal or longer battery life
- fast storage at least optional
- same or slightly improved performance compared to the current model
Now, using a SSD like in the air, i.e. much smaller than a standard 2.5'' HDD, could free up a lot of space (and some weight?).
why would you shutdown your mac? I only ever do it when I board a plane.
Anyways, I agree with you. Most Mac users would benefit more from a SSD for their day to day work, unless it is something that is particularly demanding on the GPU/CPU.
What I would expect from a macbook pro redesign:
- less weight
- equal or longer battery life
- fast storage at least optional
- same or slightly improved performance compared to the current model
Now, using a SSD like in the air, i.e. much smaller than a standard 2.5'' HDD, could free up a lot of space (and some weight?).
If apple put in an Air type non-removable SSD into the next pro, it could leave enough space for a 2.5 " HDD or SSD and mabey an optical drive. The best of all worlds. What I want is a 128 GB SSD and a 750 GB HDD for my iTunes library.
And it would also drive up the price about $500, and that's only for an extra 128GB SSD, not to mention a motherboard redesign to accommodate an extra mini PCIe slot or two, which the current logic board has no room for. The optical drive is probably going to stay because other than the SSD and better hardware, it is the big differentiating factor between the Pro and the Air. It also was a dealbreaker for me when I considered getting a 256GB MBA as my primary machine, which obviously did not happen. Because no room can realistically be made for extra mPCIe slots, blade-type SSDs are out of the question.
It will really be interesting to see which path apple will choose. Whether they will stick with a thicker, heavier layout for the "Pro" that keeps the optical drive and offers large built in storage, or go for a more Air-like design.
I just looked up the weight and dimensions of the Powerbook G4 and the pre-unibody MBP. There is no indication that "slimmer and lighter" played an important role in the design of newer models, e.g. the 15'' stayed at 2.5 kg since 2005 at least. Given that the MBPs are already lighter and slimmer than comparable laptops from other vendors, it might make sense to keep the current size and find other ways to improve them.
I was just wondering, since the trackpad has increased in size over the years... how about a 5''-7'' iPad like display in place of the trackpad. I have no idea how this would be useful (graphics tablet?), but maybe apple already knows?
Intel 22nm cpus are rumoured to be released publicly in March/April 2012 with official support for USB 3.0 and Sata 6. It will also lower the CPU's TDP by 10W with the same or better performance:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111018231512_Intel_Begins_Volume_Production_of_22nm_Microprocessors.html
My prediction is apple will launch new designed Macbook Pro's w/ SSD's no optical drive and bigger batteries.... Look at this image on iFixit and imagine no hard drive and optical bay and how much more battery/slimness apple will have to work with:
http://www.ifixit.com/blog/blog/2011/11/08/the-new-macbook-pro/
Apple have said on their site and in earning reports that Flash soldered to the motherboard and optical-less is the future. The amount of space a HD takes and Optical drive takes can be swapped for smaller, faster more energy efficient SSD and optical can be swapped for external usb. This will mean they can spread the components/battery out further and make the macbook pro thinner. I think they will drop the 13" macbook pro so it doesn't interfere fragment the 13" air. 15" and 17" newly designed macbook pros in june 2012 w/ the new iPhone 5.
See here for the "Future of the notebook" tagline which surely is a nice little hint:
http://www.apple.com/macbookair/design.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111018231512_Intel_Begins_Volume_Production_of_22nm_Microprocessors.html
My prediction is apple will launch new designed Macbook Pro's w/ SSD's no optical drive and bigger batteries.... Look at this image on iFixit and imagine no hard drive and optical bay and how much more battery/slimness apple will have to work with:
http://www.ifixit.com/blog/blog/2011/11/08/the-new-macbook-pro/
Apple have said on their site and in earning reports that Flash soldered to the motherboard and optical-less is the future. The amount of space a HD takes and Optical drive takes can be swapped for smaller, faster more energy efficient SSD and optical can be swapped for external usb. This will mean they can spread the components/battery out further and make the macbook pro thinner. I think they will drop the 13" macbook pro so it doesn't interfere fragment the 13" air. 15" and 17" newly designed macbook pros in june 2012 w/ the new iPhone 5.
See here for the "Future of the notebook" tagline which surely is a nice little hint:
http://www.apple.com/macbookair/design.html
Last edited:
Path of the Macbook Pro is no doubt going to be a machine that is a step closer to the present Air. Steve Jobs very much eluded to this, and the Air is the fastest selling Apple Notebook. I am sure we will see a sliming of the system, with a similar wedge design to that of the Air`s
The hardware; I can see the option of SSD being less of an option and more of a mainstay, utilizing a similar "blade" SSD to the Air`s larger capacities, lower costs. I personally very much like the idea of a hybrid system with both SSD & HD, however I dont believe that Apple will take this path, preferring to focus on single SSD systems and push "Thunderbolt" as a means to fast mass storage for profesional use. Nor will Apple want to diminish battery run time which is an in important factor for them.
The big question is will Apple ditch the optical drive, it`s inevitable the only question is when. With the Pro`s there is enough footprint to retain the drive by clever placement with only a very minor physical reduction in the drives height. personally I can live without an external optical drive as I rarely have use them. If anyone is going to loose optical drives across their range of portables, it`s likely Apple will be first...
The other side of the coin is sales, I have yet to see anyone not impressed by a 2011 MacBook Air`s performance. A moderately fast SSD, coupled with a moderately fast CPU really does equal blistering performance for the average user, very much giving the impression of instantaneous computing, and let`s face it the majority of people buying Mac`s are the "average user".
Now couple the same SSD to a Quad Core & discrete GPU and you are going to have a far more versatile system, as long as the storage is priced reasonably. A system attractive to all; professionals, prosumers, educationalists, students and of course the casual user offering Speed & Power
The hardware; I can see the option of SSD being less of an option and more of a mainstay, utilizing a similar "blade" SSD to the Air`s larger capacities, lower costs. I personally very much like the idea of a hybrid system with both SSD & HD, however I dont believe that Apple will take this path, preferring to focus on single SSD systems and push "Thunderbolt" as a means to fast mass storage for profesional use. Nor will Apple want to diminish battery run time which is an in important factor for them.
The big question is will Apple ditch the optical drive, it`s inevitable the only question is when. With the Pro`s there is enough footprint to retain the drive by clever placement with only a very minor physical reduction in the drives height. personally I can live without an external optical drive as I rarely have use them. If anyone is going to loose optical drives across their range of portables, it`s likely Apple will be first...
The other side of the coin is sales, I have yet to see anyone not impressed by a 2011 MacBook Air`s performance. A moderately fast SSD, coupled with a moderately fast CPU really does equal blistering performance for the average user, very much giving the impression of instantaneous computing, and let`s face it the majority of people buying Mac`s are the "average user".
Now couple the same SSD to a Quad Core & discrete GPU and you are going to have a far more versatile system, as long as the storage is priced reasonably. A system attractive to all; professionals, prosumers, educationalists, students and of course the casual user offering Speed & Power
Last edited:
I try to shut down once a week. The swap file just grows and grows with increasing page ins/outs (even with 8GB RAM). Closing applications doesn't seem to quash it and reclaim RAM as it should. Only a shutdown seems to get it back to snappy performance with everything running in RAM (for a while).
(It should be noted I tend to have a lot open at one time).
Apparently Apple is a dirty little lying company, because look what it says beneath it.
Apple said:
I do that a few times a year (a bit more frequently recently due to software updates following Lion).
My main apps stay open the whole time.
HDD speeds are way faster than even super-snappy bandwidth, so there's no difference there.
Here I agree you'll see some small improvements. Whether they justify the lost capacity vs HDD will depend on how you work.
As booting, a very rare operation for most people.
Don't get me wrong: I agree SSD is the future, but not for a MBP until they match HDD capacities and get broadly down to the same sort of price level.
I wish I could do that but the swap file just will not go away without a restart.
For example my swap file is currently 3GB and I have 3GB of free RAM and 1.5GB inactive RAM.
My swap file mostly hovers around 10GB when I have all my stuff open and it just loves to page in and page out, with appropriate HD waiting times while it switches application.
True for most. But there are super exciting new broadband speeds. Virgin UK have launched 100mbps optical broadband which offers 10mbps uploads, thats 1.25MB/s which is faster than the 4k random read speed on an average laptop HD (around 1MB/s).
You're right though as while its available to most in the UK, most people don't have this yet, so the HD is the limiting factor.
Its mainly the swap file for me. I load up huge amounts of web windows and apps. If OSX wasn't so keen to put everything in the swap file it would be nippier.
Yep I'm patiently waiting too. That was my opening line:
"I am waiting for SSD to become more reliable (no SSD yet seems to be without problems) and cost effective."
I am hoping apple can speed things up in this department. 512GB is already being sold just for way to much and with reliability problems. Apple could bulk buy and test them with their own hardware combinations. How awesome would a rock solid reliable Sandforce 2000 500GB macbook pro be.
This year prices don't seem to have tumbled like previous years. They just released faster drives at the same capacities for the same price. Meaning 500GB is still silly money.
Eh? I've speed-tested my drives and they give both read and write speeds in the 87-96Mb/s range.
What does 4K random read have anything to do with download or upload speeds?
You will be reading or writing the drive sequentially. Even the slowest hard drives are dozens of times faster than 100Mb/s.
What does 4K random read have anything to do with download or upload speeds?
100 Mb/s > (approx.) 10 MB/s.
DiskSpeedTest said that my 5400RPM (stock) HDD can do 85 MB/s.
So you're correct, but dozens is not...
I was talking about real life. You pay for 100Mb/s but get barely 50Mb/s
But yeah, you are right, I might have exaggerated a bit.What does 4K random read have anything to do with download or upload speeds?
Sequential Reads on HD are where the hard drive seeks to a data file and starts reading and does not require the head to seek until done. This would only be the case for uploading 1 file (or more if they were lucky enough to be contiguous but that doesn't tend to happen in real life) be it 1KB or 400MB the read would be sequential.
4k Random read speed is the speed a drive can read different 4K files randomly placed on the disk. The php,html,css files etc are all around 1-4K and there are 100's of them, an update will match them against files on the server, then upload them. This scan takes the files in the order they are in the file structure which is not the order they are on the disk. This means the read is random i.e the seek head must move to a new location for each read. After the scan the upload will also be random 4k as again the files are 1-4K and not stored sequentially one after the other on disk.
But as discussed before this is all rather moot as only the fastest bleeding edge broadband nudges ahead of the 4k performance of an HD. But nice to know.
ps
Reports of the 100MB service have been around 94-98MB down and 9MB up
Last edited:
To clear the swap file and purge the RAM, if nothing else. Also, if you use your Mac for 8 hours a day, and it isn't in use for the other 16, why use up all that power just to power a device that isn't doing anything useful (provided it's not doing stuff while you're away).
There are plenty of valid reasons to shut down a Mac. Just because it can run for months without a shutdown/restart doesn't mean you should.
I would assume that the process of rebooting consumes almost as much power as a few hours in sleep.
Is the size of the swap file really a problem? Also with purging the RAM, is that really necessary, if none of your programs have memory leaks?
I guess that depends on your setup. If your swap file has gotten to about 50 GB, then it might be a problem.
Do you use a web browser? Then you have memory leak issues of one sort or another. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that just about every web browser takes up much more memory than is necessary.
I'm not saying that one always should restart their Mac. However, I get slightly annoyed by the people who, every time someone mentions restarting their Mac, sweep in with "WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU EVER RESTART YOUR MAC? THAT'S A WINDOWS THING, WE'RE ABOVE THAT!" Yes, I'm being overdramatic. I'm simply saying there are valid reasons to restart your Mac, and just wanting to is one of them.
