Steve Jobs on 13-Inch MacBook Pro's Use of Intel Core 2 Duo Processors

[0makol16]

Mac truly has, no games.

games that be used: CoD4, Dragon Age, The Settlers 7, Brothers in Arms, and soon Source games. they should use newer OS X title since I would imagine people who game on OS X and don't would Boot Camp would more interested in newer games.

using games made for Windows absolutely makes no sense, Apple isn't trying to sell a Windows based machine.

 

[canucksfan88]

really...if you are going to use an i5/i7, why would you be wanting a 13" screen.....

makes no sense. i would have liked to see the 1440x900 resolution on the 13" (and let me decide if its too small) but hey, what can you do.

stop complaining there is no i3 on the 13", C2D is good enough for most people.

 

[alent1234]

I'm assuming you meant the part where we'll be pleasantly surprised by the performance of the chip, because otherwise that sentence makes no sense.

It's a matter of debate, but I tend to believe in Apple. They usually deliver what they promise, even if it doesn't seem that way at first. My own computer was a minor update, but it performs extremely well and I am more than happy with my purchase, especially because I can only get OS X on Apple's own computers, and I think OS X is by far the strongest product Apple has out there.

As for the benchmarks, they may be old games, but they can still be used to show performance benefits, especially since those games were graphically intensive for their day and age. I have an old game on my Mac called Armagetron Advanced. My 9600m usually gets ~200FPS (obviously not displayable on my display), while my 9400m gets ~100FPS. The graphics are very easy to display, yet they can still be used to show a performance increase. I dunno why Apple doesn't use more modern games, but I can't think of any particular reason for them to do it either. Apple isn't saying "Oh look 60fps in Doom 3 this card is teh beast!!1!!11!1!111oneone." The important part is the comparison; if they showed that Doom 3 ran well on the card, then yeah, that would be questionable, but they're merely using Doom 3 as a tool to compare the power of the two cards.

most modern games are written for DirectX. John Carmack held out using OpenGL for a long time until he finally caved in to Direct3D. for years he said OpenGL was easier to program, but maybe he was hoping that direct3D would just go away

 

[BigdaddyMBP]

Maybe, but it’s better than Intel HD integrated graphics, no? There’s no way they could have fit a discrete GPU in the 13” chassis.

Dude, check out Alienware M11x. 1GB Discrete graphics card in an 11" laptop.

 

[Eidorian]

games that be used: CoD4, Dragon Age, The Settlers 7, Brothers in Arms, and soon Source games. they should use newer OS X title since I would imagine people who game on OS X and don't would Boot Camp would more interested in newer games.

Don't forget Unreal Tournament 3.

Sadly, I can't consider OS X for my games.

 

[0makol16]

Dude, check out Alienware M11x. 1GB Discrete graphics card in an 11" laptop.

no DVD drive, so there is room for one.

 

[alent1234]

Yes it is. This was seen coming for a while. When Jobs says it was a choice between graphics (just how "killer" they are is a matter for debate) and an upgraded cpu, that's probably exactly correct. Because of space limitations on the 13" logic board it was a choice between Arrandale with its integrated graphics only, or a C2D spec bump + a new graphics chip. Either way Apple went, some people were going to howl.



Look at how thick that thing is. Apple is not willing to make the trade-offs required to have both Arrandale and a discrete gpu in the 13" MBP, like expanding the case or removing the optical drive.



Arrandale uses 2 dies, C2D only one.

doesn't it save space having the northbridge chipset all in one unit with the CPU and graphics?

 

[0makol16]

Don't forget Unreal Tournament 3.

Sadly, I can't consider OS X for my games.

forgot UT3 is coming out, this spring I think.

 

[Eidorian]

doesn't it save space having the northbridge chipset all in one unit with the CPU and graphics?

The Platform Controller Hub is on a separate external package from the processor/IGP combo.

 

[kenman884]

Mac truly has, no games.

Not true. With Steam coming to Mac, and anything now compiled using Steam producing a native Mac version, gaming on a Mac is becoming hugely more legitimate.

Plenty of games are native, and way more than I'd like use Cider ports (I can understand some enthusiast with a Mac porting his own games on the side, but full-blown game studios and games being ported through Cider? Really?)

And you didn't address my initial point. So what if the game is from 2005? Modern consoles are from 2005, but that doesn't stop people from spending money on them. The important thing is the result, which, in the case of the console, is a good, cheap, gaming experience (which they provide), and in the case of the gaming comparison chart, is to show how the two different graphics cards compare (which they also provide). If they used a modern game like MW2, it would be able to push significantly fewer pixels, but the results would be approximately the same in pure comparison charts.

Irrelevant, insulting catchphrases, lack of actual conversation, red herrings and other fallacies galore... Do I smell a troll?

Well... A troll to me, anyway. You do know about the processor stuff.

 

[sKiZZiT]

Which C2D do you have, how much RAM, and what video card? It would start by comparing your current system with either the 13" or 15" to get an idea of what you can expect for performance. If even the 13" is significantly faster than what you have and you're OK with your current performance, then performance won't be an issue on any of them (although faster is always better).

Then, it becomes a matter of preference - and you might want to spend some time in the AppleStore comparing them in real life - since no one really knows your preferences.

For me, 17" is a good size, 15" is acceptable, and 13" is too small, but you may be different.

It's a T9600@2.80GHz, 3GB RAM with Nvidia Quadro FX 770M. I'm okay with 13".

What do you think?

 

[speedy815]

As many have stated; why would you buy 'old' hardware? How long will Intel be able to supply these core 2 chips to Apple? I'm sure we will see a refresh of the 13" in the not too distant future (please don't start any rumors about it however!)

If I were to buy a macbook pro now then a refresh came about 3-4 months i'd personally feel 'cheated'.

I was waiting for this refresh; however, i'm going to stick with my unibody 13" (with firewire) and SSD till I actually see a product that has Value For Money stuck on it. This new update of the 13" is akin to asking someone to buy a 'new' car based on the fact it is the same as the 2008 model except the gearbox has change. I'm not convinced. It's a bit of a sham but it is not going to go away till the C2D supply runs low.

 

[Cuju]

Can I get some real input on how big of a difference getting the High end MBP 13" or a 15" mid range MBP(core i5)? 4GB ram in both, HDD, etc etc. The geeky side of me wants the 15" but is it worth the extra bucks?



Most people have been posting crap about the i3, it's not in the MBP lineup so don't worry about it.

 

[BigJimmyC]

really...if you are going to use an i5/i7, why would you be wanting a 13" screen.....

makes no sense. i would have liked to see the 1440x900 resolution on the 13" (and let me decide if its too small) but hey, what can you do.

stop complaining there is no i3 on the 13", C2D is good enough for most people.

Has it never occurred to you that notebooks can be plugged into monitors? For people who use external displays and just want a powerful, portable computer, the smaller the better. C2D is good enough for most people in the same way that 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

 

[Eidorian]

Not true. With Steam coming to Mac, and anything now compiled using Steam producing a native Mac version, gaming on a Mac is becoming hugely more legitimate.

Plenty of games are native, and way more than I'd like use Cider ports (I can understand some enthusiast with a Mac porting his own games on the side, but full-blown game studios and games being ported through Cider? Really?)

Once again, sadly I can not consider OS X for my games.

And you didn't address my initial point. So what if the game is from 2005?

Can you tell me how much better my CounterStrike: Source experience is moving from 100 to 200 FPS?

Today's hardware is overkill for running 5 year old software. (Nearly 7 years for CS:S) I'm much more interested recent releases and in software that I can easily get a hold of today.

 

[mosx]

Not true. With Steam coming to Mac, and anything now compiled using Steam producing a native Mac version, gaming on a Mac is becoming hugely more legitimate.

Steam is the distribution platform, not the game engine.

Source is the game engine. It's only used in a handful of games. Half-Life 2, Portal, Left 4 Dead. Just because a game is available on Steam doesn't mean it will be available for OS X. For instance, Modern Warfare 2 is available on Steam. But it doesn't use the Source engine.

Steam coming to OS X just means they're bringing the distribution platform to OS X. Valve is bringing their Source engine games. But any other game still has to be ported.

 

[Saturn1217]

I read it fine. I simply meant that what youre looking for doesnt exist at apple in that size, so there's no point in complaining about it. You'll have to put up with a 15" or go with another brand. End of story.

Um not to be rude but of course there is a point about complaining about it. In case you haven't noticed apple does listen to user feedback every once in a while. How else did the original anti-glare option or Firewire find their way back? Having a premium portable computer is actually a big deal to many people (13inches is as big as I will go for truly portable) . If that doesn't include you, that is your opinion but others are entitled to express theirs.

 

[0makol16]

Steam is the distribution platform, not the game engine.

Source is the game engine. It's only used in a handful of games. Half-Life 2, Portal, Left 4 Dead. Just because a game is available on Steam doesn't mean it will be available for OS X. For instance, Modern Warfare 2 is available on Steam. But it doesn't use the Source engine.

Steam coming to OS X just means they're bringing the distribution platform to OS X. Valve is bringing their Source engine games. But any other game still has to be ported.

but with Steam coming to Mac more companies may want to sell their games to a new audience.

 

[ddTaylor]

Wait, are you saying you want 1080p on the 13" with an i3? You know that means Intel integrated graphics, right? I'm not sure they can do 720p (sarcasm). Unless of course you also want a discrete graphics card. But then do you want it to cost the same, or be the same thickness, or have a modicum of thermal management?

And maybe I'm crazy, but why is everyone so fixated with 1080p on small laptop screens. You do realize that desktop monitors don't come in at that resolution (actually the equivalent 16:10 aspect) below 24"? And you want twice the pixel density? Do you guys wear these laptops like hats with the screen right in front of your eyes (again, sarcasm)?

Ultimately, I don't understand why everyone has bought into this 1080p thing anyway, when that isn't even the normal aspect ratio for a computer. Has TV marketing really had that big an effect on everybody that they feel the need to just spout off numbers in order to find a gripe?

I am saying that my Dell from nearly a year ago has a 15.6" display with 1080P - it is not hard to do and puts the MBP behind the technical curve of even the lowest-end Dell with the OPTION for things the MBP do not even offer for a MUCH HIGHER PRICE! Think about that when you pay $1800 for a notebook that has no HDMI out and no 1080P and no DlueRay and no 3G and no WiMax and the list goes on and on....

D

 

[ddTaylor]

I want a dinner date with Halle Berry. I don't need a dinner date with Halle Berry.

If your MBP is paying for itself through your professional work then if you need XXX performance then you pay YYYYY money to match up to that need. If Apple's products don't match then you have a mismatch in valuations.

I would like to have a 15" MBP that didn't cost $150 more not to have a super glossy screen (even more so if didn't make the pixels smaller and not provide builtin scaling). However, if I that's a requirement for me and pays for itself then will make that tradeoff.

Given the system constraints the 13" is under (lack of space) you aren't going to get the best performance if they use a i3 or i5 chip because not going to get a discrete graphics chip. Unless your needs are for GPU performance that is about 15-25% below a 9400M that would work. However, you don't seem likely to be one of those people since you seem to be hooked on Spec sheet checklists rather than actual workflow computational needs.

Why can Dell, Gateway and Sony all offer similar form-factored computers with much higher specs (sans the battery) and cost less? That arguement hold ZERO water for anyone who actually follows hardware.

It is not a matter of constraints as those are SELF IMPOSED by Apple! I would rather have a slightly larger notebook with the specifications most any mid-priced PC notebook has had or has had the OPTION OF for at least a year or two! If you don't want 1080P then make that an OPTION but give the option of BlueRay, 3G, 1080P and more...

D

 

[simmchen]

really...if you are going to use an i5/i7, why would you be wanting a 13" screen.....

makes no sense. i would have liked to see the 1440x900 resolution on the 13" (and let me decide if its too small) but hey, what can you do.

stop complaining there is no i3 on the 13", C2D is good enough for most people.

it's good enough for me.

 

[lilo777]

really...if you are going to use an i5/i7, why would you be wanting a 13" screen.....

makes no sense. i would have liked to see the 1440x900 resolution on the 13" (and let me decide if its too small) but hey, what can you do.

stop complaining there is no i3 on the 13", C2D is good enough for most people.

Really? Why would not I want i5? If you pick i5 with the same performance as C2D you save 20% power consumption. How is that for a reason?

 

[tianuk3]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post on the forums. I have been a PC user until this point, and have decided to switch to a macbook pro. The issue I am having, is which one?! The laptop will mainly be used for work, which doesn't involve any hardcore photo or video editing software, just being able to have several windows open at once with lag free switching, and possibly running windows at the same time. The issue I am having is which laptop will suit my gaming needs best. Right now I play World of Warcraft on an old pc desktop, with only 1.5 GB of RAM, and 128MB ATI Radeon card. It plays fine on low settings, minus Dalaran where I get 10 fps typically. I'd like to be able to play WoW on my new MBP, with higher settings, not necessarily the best, but a higher FPS would be nice. Also, when StarCraft 2, and maybe Diablo 3 comes out, I'd like to be able to play them; again, not necessarily on high graphics. I am not a hardcore gamer, and have no desire to play and first-person shooters demanding hardware requirements. Also, I have a 24" monitor to hook the laptop up to, so screen size is not an issue. I was originally thinking the 13" MBP would suit my needs, but the upgrade doesn't seem as substantial as the 15" upgrade. I'm confused! Which laptop would best suit my needs in the opinion of you forum posters? I appreciate any advice you have. Thanks!

I no longer play many Computer video games, but the ones you just talked about do grab my attention. WOW will run much better than your current pc desktop, don't worry about that. As for Diablo 3, not too sure, most these games need a good graphics card, processor means nothing, supposedly the 320m can just about run Crysis or whatever that game is, on the lowest settings, I can't imagine Diablo 3 needing that great a specification as it seems still quite a simple game graphically. I hope it runs okay.

As for the update. I am dissappointed. But I sold my 2.2GHZ Blackbook which was just about good enough for my needs in 2009, after having it for 2 years, as I was going off to travel,and I still miss it now, the 2.2GHZ Blackbook cost me a grand in 2007, the 2.4GHZ Macbook Pro will cost me a grand in 2010,Blackbook came with 1GB Ram, 160GB drive, this one comes with 4GB 250GB, still a worthy upgrade in my eyes.

For all the people who moan about the display, get a bloody monitor then, ill be buying a 1080p monitor to go with the new macbook pro 13" for games.etc, then i have the 13" for portability, best of both worlds! The speed difference between the 13" and 15" can't be that much and in my eyes certainly isn't worth 500 quid (the price difference in the UK).

Oh and I can get the 13" pro for 850 pounds with 3 year applecare on education discount, not trying to rub it in on those who cannot get the discount, but that is good value in my eyes. Anyway if I really want power, ill get a desktop, laptops aren't suitable for really complex things.

I had a 1920 x 1200 15.4" 3.2GHZ Dell Inspiron 9100 with subwoofer, 128mb 3d card.etc back in 2003, was amazing back then, screen was incredible, I miss it, but it also weighed around 5kg, it was a portable desktop, i hated travelling with it, and learnt my lesson then, only small portable for laptop, if i want power ill get a desktop

/rant over

 

[djasterix]

Can I get some real input on how big of a difference getting the High end MBP 13" or a 15" mid range MBP(core i5)? 4GB ram in both, HDD, etc etc. The geeky side of me wants the 15" but is it worth the extra bucks?



Most people have been posting crap about the i3, it's not in the MBP lineup so don't worry about it.

I'm on the same "dilema", but as far as I have reaserched there really is a significant difference.

The high end 13" is a great machine, but has a C2D processor released on the 2Q 2009. Its dual core, no hyperthreading, no turbo boost, no discrete graphics. For professional everyday computing (I mean, not high performance computing, just things you have to do with a little punch and some style) its more than ok.

The entry level 15" has some honey for me, it's a new gen dual core processor, with all the new mambo jambo from intel plus a discrete graphics card. Also bigger screen and better resolution, and if you have extra bucks can go hi-res with that baby. Great choice for non-commercial purposes, but too much just for office day-to-day use.

So, it all depends in what you need, and I'm just in the middle. 15" is not that bulky, but 13" is perfect for traveling, and I do travel a lot. 13" now has "killer" graphics, but 15" has a better and bigger display - just great for amateur video editing and some aperture stuff. And finally 13" is right on my budget, but 15" wont hurt me so much...

 

[Jimmy James]

really...if you are going to use an i5/i7, why would you be wanting a 13" screen.....

Umm...many people need laptops that are also used as their primary computer at home (connected to bigger monitors & peripherals).

A 13" can't be beat for fully functional portability and it has the potential to house sufficient desktop power for many users.

I really can't think of a better setup.