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

[jimmyjoemccrow]

I guess Apple overestimated the intelligence of the reader.

This is standard comparison of new item vs old item. The old item is given a performance of 1.0 and the new item is a ratio of performance. So a value of 1.8 means 80% faster than the baseline.

As you can see, the performance gain varies by game. It will also depend on resolution chosen, options selected, and so on, so fps isn't too useful, either. If you have a game you like, then search for a review on how that game performs on various Macs to get an idea.

I am sure I would have guessed what 1.8, 1.6 et al meant without a baseline. The performance benefits would have fluctuated across resolutions and levels of detail in a manner that didn't represent a constant ratio. If you are doing benchmarks it is usual to make sure you keep things like resolution and levels of detail constant. Most likely they have done several benchmarks across different resolutions and levels of detail and posted the ones that showed the biggest increase.

AND he explained that the C2D wouldn't be much faster while the GPU IS much faster. So you have a choice of slightly faster CPU and much slower GPU or slightly slower CPU and much faster GPU.

Few applications benefit from a slight gain in CPU. A number of applications benefit from a faster GPU, particularly with OpenCl coming down the road. For the average user buying a low end 13" machine, they're not doing anything where CPU is the bottleneck, but they very well COULD be doing something where GPU is the bottleneck (like games).

The i3 is capable of working as if it has 4 cores instead of 2, meaning applications that can take advantage of multiple cores would benefit. More applications take advantage of multiple cores than ones that are GPU accelerated. The GPU on the i3 is roughly equivalent to the 9400M so it wouldn't be a huge loss.

Source games for instance are more CPU hungry than GPU.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Apple saying users will see more of a boost from GPU acceleration? Say it ain't so!

 

[Maserati7200]

10 hours is impressive, but what's the point? We live in a world where there are plugs everywhere: offices, homes, airplanes, trains, libraries, etc..
Granted, PCs that die-off in 2 hours don't cut it. That barely lasts you a class or a conference, but once your up at 5/6 hours there is no difference.
Stever is feeding us crap.

1) I don't want to drag my charger everywhere I go
2) Eh, not all airplanes and trains have plugs

A Core 2 Duo with nvidia graphics is a hell of a lot better than a Core i3 with Intel graphics.

Yes.

Keeping the screen entire day at 30% brightness is not called "stop worrying about the battery". Only Apple idiots will be sitting next to a power outlet the whole day keeping the screen brightness at 30% and laugh at those poor PC users.

Haha, that's funny. Because I usually get 5-7 hours with my 13" MBP (advertised as 7hrs) with the display at 50-70% brightness

Did you check BMW engines lately? They are good. Did you check Apple CPUs lately? They suck! Did you check your analogies lately? They suck too!

Give me your honest opinion. My thought is that no matter what Apple does you'll find a problem with (that's what I've noticed from your posts), but maybe you could prove me wrong. Would you complain/not approve if they put an i3 or i5 in the 13" but no discrete GPU? I'm assuming yes, considering that you don't like the 9400M, 9600GT, and 330M which are many times more powerful than the intel HD graphics.
Would you not approve if Apple somehow shoehorned a discrete card in there, but battery life went down? My guess is that you would. You'd probably say something along the lines of "Yeah sure, they got an i5, but still too late. Oh and by the way, you Mac users can't brag about battery life anymore. Now it only gets an hour more than the Asus XXXXX. Oh, and where is USB3, Blu ray, HDMI, eSata, teleportation, and dog walking? My HP XXXX has all of that for 1/69th the price, plus I can run OSX on it. But why would I want to run OSX anyway when it sucks? Oh and hows Arpeture 3 going? "
It seems to me that nothing Apple does will satisfy you. A higher clocked Core2Duo with a much better GPU (which is current, btw) and a better battery is probably a better solution for most people because A) you'll notice the performance difference a lot more with the better GFX, B) Battery life doesn't go down.
Additionally answer this truthfully, would you rather have a computer with 2.4 GHz C2D and a GT320M, or a computer with an i3 (or i5) without an additional GPU?

I still don't know what are the icore5 and icore7. Can someone explain me? I am still deciding whether to buy the 13(cheapest) or 15(cheapest). Can somebody so kind explain me the MBP 15 is for what kind of person, I meant what is that person likely to do in the MBP 15 with core i5? because basically I need the laptop to write papers, watch video, email, and edit videos; so what will be my best interest? the 13 C2D or 15 icore5?

p.s I am not a pc expert =P

Michelle

Thank you for making this post.
See this girl everyone? She is the epitome of most 13" MBP buyers. A college student, or a high school student, needing this computer for facebook, email, videos, writing papers, etc. Thank you my dear for somehow finding this forum and posting this. The average 13" MBP buyer doesn't know anything (I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, rather point out where priorities should be) about processors and graphics. If Apple added a Core i3 (which wouldn't be an improvement anyway, especially because they put higher clocked C2D's) they would have to use a discrete card (which I don't know if they could fit, but for arguments sake I'll grant that they somehow made room), which uses a lot more power, thus making battery life go down. The larger 15" and 17" laptops have much larger batteries, thus being able to support the consumption of discrete cards, without battery life loss. If they didn't put a discrete card in there, then the performance of some tasks would be so dreadful that even the average end user would notice (this is coming from someone who had a 13" MacBook with a GMA950). What they did is the best solution for now because you get better processors and a significantly better GPU, but still retaining very high battery life, which most of their market needs.
Now Michelle to answer your question: yes, a 13" MBP with Core2Duo will do all just fine. However, you mentioned that you edit video. A Core2Duo will be just fine, however an i5 will be faster for something like that. Somethign you also want consider is screen space. I'm in highschool and I'm on Microsoft word all the time. I wish I had a 15" computer because I always have to resize the windows when I want to see two documents (to the point where I can't see all of the document). With what you are doing, I really think more screen space is a killer feature that I wish I had. The 15" also has much better speakers but idk if that's important for you. Choose whatever you are willing to pay for, but if I were you, I'd get the low end 15" with the core i5.

 

[riveting]

The intel HD integrated graphics are pretty decent and is probably just as good as the 320M in GPU acceleration and features, 320M maybe a bit better in gaming but it is still an integrated graphics and still suck bad on gaming anyway. What tasks do people really do that benefit from the difference of intel HD graphics and 320M GPU?

I'll take a better CPU any day.

 

[lanlife]

Hey guys. I have a couple questions here.

- Is there any significant difference in performance between the 2.4GHz 13"MBP and the 2.66GHz 13"MBP ?

- Is it convenient to travel around with the 15" MBP ?

Btw, I'm a student that looking for my first mac.

Thank you.

 

[0makol16]

Hey guys. I have a couple questions here.

- Is there any significant difference in performance between the 2.4GHz 13"MBP and the 2.66GHz 13"MBP ?

- Is it convenient to travel around with the 15" MBP ?

Btw, I'm a student that looking for my first mac.

Thank you.

you won't notice much difference between the two processors, but with the 15" you'll get a big performance boost. I own an Aluminum 13" MacBook (before they went "Pro") and it's very light, but I'm not sure how heavy the 15" feels when carrying it around. .

 

[entatlrg]

Perhaps S Job's wants us all pro users to own either 15" or 17" machines, lol.

Meanwhile he's likely at home typing on his souped up MacBook Air

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

1) I don't want to drag my charger everywhere I go

Does it really add that much weight in the bag you carry your laptop in?

If Apple added a Core i3 (which wouldn't be an improvement anyway, especially because they put higher clocked C2D's) they would have to use a discrete card (which I don't know if they could fit, but for arguments sake I'll grant that they somehow made room), which uses a lot more power, thus making battery life go down.

Why does everyone believe this? The i3 would be like putting a Quad Core in place of your Dual Core. The power consumption is higher, but since the i3 finished most tasks quicker this offsets that consumption. The discrete graphics would not be needed since the i3 has onboard graphics roughly equivalent to a 9400M.

*Actually information about the onboard graphics is variable. I've seen it compared to a 9400M but also to a GMA4500 However if they did go for the discrete GPU it would only be used in certain circumstances and wouldn't be a huge hit on the battery life. The difference would be that they wouldn't be able to put one in at the pricepoint they are looking for.

 

[Mal67]

i3 gpu?

I'm confused I thought there are few i3 notebooks were out there with discrete and integrated gpus. I might go back and re-read these posts in case I missed something here.
Plus I hope they produce a low cost version using i-something with discrete gpu in the macbook and mini before the end of the year.

 

[Frosties]

Anyone tested the sata speed yet. It should be the same nightmare in the 13" as it was before due to nvidia chips and home cooked firmware, keeping us with old harddrive tech and old cpu tech. Thanks Jobs! *irony*

 

[marksman]

I don't want to pay $1949 minimum for a screen (matte) that I can actually use for more than 5 minutes without getting a headache.

Get some matte sunglasses!

Stuff like this makes me wonder how much the guy/gal who's tasked with responding to inconsequential emails make. I'd expect a hefty sum if I have to read through hundreds of garbage mails a day.

Probably a lot. It is funny people think Steve is wading through the 1000s of emails that come to his public email address a day. Perhaps they have some quota where Steve is forwarded 20 mails a day or something, but it is amusing none the less.

Also this stupid multi-quoting never works right for me in a variety of ways. In this case it left out a message I was trying to quote. Where someone responded to me comparing 13" mbp to a netbook. Trust me when I say I would never recommend anyone buy a netbook of any kind. Honestly though, for a 13" macbook I would say go 15" or get an iPad.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

1)
The average 13" MBP buyer doesn't know anything (I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, rather point out where priorities should be) about processors and graphics.

That statement is absolute bull*****.

There is an entire market of graphics/media/audio professionals who value compact yet powerful laptops, either as a sole or a secondary travel computer. In no way are they ignorant about the processors being used to power the software they use every day to make an income.

Never assume that computer size dictates intelligence towards usage.

 

[Maserati7200]

Hey guys. I have a couple questions here.

- Is there any significant difference in performance between the 2.4GHz 13"MBP and the 2.66GHz 13"MBP ?

- Is it convenient to travel around with the 15" MBP ?

Btw, I'm a student that looking for my first mac.

Thank you.

1) Absolutely not, the performance difference would be negligible for most things.
2) Depends. Are you willing to carry a notebook that's 1 pound heavier than the 13" MBP? The 13" is 4.5 lbs and the 15" is 5.6 lbs. However, that 5.6 pounds is spread over a greater area so it will be less dense and not feel much heavier than a 13" MBP. After having a 13" notebook for 2 and 1/2 years, I think I'd rather have a 15", I've held 15" computers before and the larger screen seemed worth the weight.

 

[Maserati7200]

That statement is absolute bull*****.

There is an entire market of graphics/media/audio professionals who value compact yet powerful laptops, either as a sole or a secondary travel computer. In no way are they ignorant about the processors being used to power the software they use every day to make an income.

Hold on. Did I say all 13" MBP users or did I say the average 13" MBP user? I acknowledge that there are people who would like higher specs in a smaller package, but most of the people buying 13" MBP's are how I described. They want a cheap Mac laptop made of Aluminum to go on facebook and write papers. Go to a college, highschool, a starbucks, or an Apple Store and I think you'll agree with me.

Does it really add that much weight in the bag you carry your laptop in?

Not so much as that, rather I don't want to have to feddle around with finding an outlet and making sure I don't lose the charger. And what if I forgot to bring my charger to school? Luckily, if I do forget (which happens a lot), instead of using full brightness, I'll lower it to about 60% and get a full school day (8:30AM-4:45 PM) in on one charge.

 

[lanlife]

you won't notice much difference between the two processors, but with the 15" you'll get a big performance boost. I own an Aluminum 13" MacBook (before they went "Pro") and it's very light, but I'm not sure how heavy the 15" feels when carrying it around. .

1) Absolutely not, the performance difference would be negligible for most things.
2) Depends. Are you willing to carry a notebook that's 1 pound heavier than the 13" MBP? The 13" is 4.5 lbs and the 15" is 5.6 lbs. However, that 5.6 pounds is spread over a greater area so it will be less dense and not feel much heavier than a 13" MBP. After having a 13" notebook for 2 and 1/2 years, I think I'd rather have a 15", I've held 15" computers before and the larger screen seemed worth the weight.

Thanks for the comments guys! Really appreciate it.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

Hold on. Did I say all 13" MBP users or did I say the average 13" MBP user? I acknowledge that there are people who would like higher specs in a smaller package, but most of the people buying 13" MBP's are how I described. They want a cheap Mac laptop made of Aluminum to go on facebook and write papers. Go to a college, highschool, a starbucks, or an Apple Store and I think you'll agree with me.

In what way is the size of the computer correlated to the average intelligence of its user?

If you want to talk about an average user, the Pro model rarely factors in due to price. The consumer Macbook is the target device, where the size just happens to be set at only one option.

Your point tries to jam two unrelated topics together, but fails horribly.

 

[piero09]

MBP 13"... Is it worth buying?

Hi
My 13" MB got stolen on December and i've been waiting by the minute for this update. I am a bit disappointed I must say.
Im worried that in six months or so, a new update would come out with i3 (i've read C2C will become obsolete in this year), and with the automatic switching between integrated and discrete graphics option (btw is there a big difference between 320M an GT 330?). The HD doesn't bother me because I'm buying the Hitachi 500 gb 7200rpm on amazon.
Steve's reply comforts me a bit but I'm worried its all BS and reality is that the C2D is due to a chip shortage. My question is: Is it worth buying the new 13" MBP 2.66 or should i wait a few months (which i really don't want)? I want a fast, last-gen computer.

thnx,

 

[mmackh]

I waited and had it all prepared. I really did. My old SZ with 2.53GHz, 4GB RAM and 2h battery life served its purpose.
"Specs are irrelevant, its the user experience."
Yes, I completely agree and this and it is the reason why I choose mac over windows.
BUT, why didn't they bump the screen resolution? I am so disappointed. Now the only advantage I get from potentially buying a 13' is battery life.
I don't use it for "gaming" etc., I want to use it for surfing the web, photoshop, storing pictures and watching movies and all should be neatly packed into a unibody design with a high-resolution screen. C'mon I had 1280x800 four years ago. First time I used the Z series I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about, but it really becomes enjoyable when you get accustomed to the high-res screen and its hard to go back to low-res then.
Now I am hoping for a MBA refresh with longer battery life (at least 7-8h), which would fantastic, because I wouldn't need to carry 2kg around all the time.
btw the vaio z & the vaio sz are both considerably lighter than the 13' mbp, but I really am in favor of os x. does anyone know when the mba will get a potential refresh? i'll be heading over to the subforums in the mean time.

 

[Pommy]

I am sure I would have guessed what 1.8, 1.6 et al meant without a baseline. The performance benefits would have fluctuated across resolutions and levels of detail in a manner that didn't represent a constant ratio. If you are doing benchmarks it is usual to make sure you keep things like resolution and levels of detail constant. Most likely they have done several benchmarks across different resolutions and levels of detail and posted the ones that showed the biggest increase.

The footnote on the Performance page lists the testing conditions

Testing conducted by Apple in March 2010 using preproduction 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo–based 13-inch MacBook Pro units with NVIDIA GeForce 320M and production 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo-based 13-inch MacBook Pro units with NVIDIA GeForce 9400M. All systems were configured with 4GB of RAM. Doom 3 v1.3.1 tested using timedemo: demo1, high graphics quality, at 1024x768. Call of Duty 4 v1.7.1 tested using Timedemoambush, Timedemobog, Timedemopipeline, at 1280x800. Unreal Tournament 2004 v3369.2 tested using Bridge of Fate botmatch, maximum graphics quality, at 1024x768. Quake 4 v1.3 tested using netTimeDemo: demo001, high graphics quality, at 1280x800. MacBook Pro continuously monitors system thermal and power conditions, and may adjust processor speed as needed to maintain optimal system operation.

 

[Bregalad]

That statement is absolute bull*****.

There is an entire market of graphics/media/audio professionals who value compact yet powerful laptops, either as a sole or a secondary travel computer. In no way are they ignorant about the processors being used to power the software they use every day to make an income.

Never assume that computer size dictates intelligence towards usage.

Apple has, in their "infinite wisdom", decided that performance should be tied to screen size. They have chosen to ignore the fact that there are a lot of professionals who need speed in a small, light package. They have chosen to ignore the fact that many people with lower performance demands want a larger screen. They have chosen to ignore the fact that some people desire maximum performance and do not care about battery life because their computer moves only from one wall socket to another.

I believe all those decisions are wrong, but they're Steve's to make not mine. If someone emailed him to say that they need the power of the 15" MBP in a smaller, lighter unit he'd likely reply: "It's only an extra pound. Not a big deal".

 

[canucksfan88]

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?

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.

well from Apples perspective its would be a bad business decision. those who want an i5/i7 will have to by a 15" or 17", thus increasing their revenue.

im guessing their 13" is targeted to the lower end consumer since it didnt get the ix's.

they know people who need an i5/i7 will pay for it, so why not have them spend more.

i dont really care, i dont do graphics work or video rendering, so C2D works for me.

 

[Repo]

Hold on. Did I say all 13" MBP users or did I say the average 13" MBP user? I acknowledge that there are people who would like higher specs in a smaller package, but most of the people buying 13" MBP's are how I described. They want a cheap Mac laptop made of Aluminum to go on facebook and write papers. Go to a college, highschool, a starbucks, or an Apple Store and I think you'll agree with me.

In what way is the size of the computer correlated to the average intelligence of its user?

If you want to talk about an average user, the Pro model rarely factors in due to price. The consumer Macbook is the target device, where the size just happens to be set at only one option.

Your point tries to jam two unrelated topics together, but fails horribly.

Actually, he's right. One of my friends just bought a 13" MacBook Pro not too long ago, and they are not tech savvy at all. The 13" MacBook and MacBook Pro are only priced $200 apart; it's really not that much, considering the entry level notebook is $999.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Hi
My 13" MB got stolen on December and i've been waiting by the minute for this update. I am a bit disappointed I must say.
Im worried that in six months or so, a new update would come out with i3 (i've read C2C will become obsolete in this year), and with the automatic switching between integrated and discrete graphics option (btw is there a big difference between 320M an GT 330?). The HD doesn't bother me because I'm buying the Hitachi 500 gb 7200rpm on amazon.
Steve's reply comforts me a bit but I'm worried its all BS and reality is that the C2D is due to a chip shortage. My question is: Is it worth buying the new 13" MBP 2.66 or should i wait a few months (which i really don't want)? I want a fast, last-gen computer.

thnx,

Spend no more than $750 for a refurbished or used late/early 2009 13" with 9400M (even if you have the current ca$h). Keep the extra cash growing and use that in September to get the spec bump in 6mths (may take until October though for the 13" after the poly unibody MB gets updated for back to school).

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

Actually, he's right. One of my friends just bought a 13" MacBook Pro not too long ago, and they are not tech savvy at all. The 13" MacBook and MacBook Pro are only priced $200 apart; it's really not that much, considering the entry level notebook is $999.

Actually, no. I wouldn't base his entire stance's validity on the basis of your one friend. Which, from what you said, seemed motivated by entry price rather than actual 13" form anyway.

 

[airness2three]

Hey I asked this question earlier and never got a response..

I JUST bought my MBP on March 16, which places me in the 30 day exchange policy that Apple had promised me. However, since I have obviously been using my MBP since then, there will be a 139.90 restocking fee charge if I were to do an exchange. So, given the updates on the 13'', should I exchange it for the refreshed 13''? Is it worth the 139.90?!

BTW, I purchased the highest end 2.53ghz model of the 13'' MBP.

I need advice from the experts here. I only have 2 days to decide whether or not the updates are worth another $140.