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.
Steve Jobs on 13-Inch MacBook Pro's Use of Intel Core 2 Duo Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Macbook Pro Benchmarks
Ok all,
I bit the bullet and purchased the New Macbook Pro 13" model and immediately ran some benchmarks (no one on the web seems to have done this yet and it was driving me crazy).
As you can see from the attached Geekbench results, it appears that overall performance as measured by the Geekdbench score, has improved over 5% over the previous 2009 generation Macbook Pro.
Other then the processor differences 2.26 vs 2.4, the RAM was configured the same for both systems (4GB) and both systems underwent a reboot and all other programs were killed while Geekbench was running.
I'm not exactly impressed with the numbers, but improved battery life and improved graphics was enough to push me to purchase the update but the lack of an i3 processor made this the most uninspired Apple purchase I can remember.
Thoughts?
NOTE: 2009 13" MBP Score is to the LEFT and 2010 MBP Score is to the RIGHT.
Ok all,
I bit the bullet and purchased the New Macbook Pro 13" model and immediately ran some benchmarks (no one on the web seems to have done this yet and it was driving me crazy).
As you can see from the attached Geekbench results, it appears that overall performance as measured by the Geekdbench score, has improved over 5% over the previous 2009 generation Macbook Pro.
Other then the processor differences 2.26 vs 2.4, the RAM was configured the same for both systems (4GB) and both systems underwent a reboot and all other programs were killed while Geekbench was running.
I'm not exactly impressed with the numbers, but improved battery life and improved graphics was enough to push me to purchase the update but the lack of an i3 processor made this the most uninspired Apple purchase I can remember.
Thoughts?
NOTE: 2009 13" MBP Score is to the LEFT and 2010 MBP Score is to the RIGHT.
Attachments
Sure. Hence the lack of Firewire on the first generation unibody MacBook.
They might call the 13" unibodies 'Pro', but they don't treat them as such. We constantly get evidence of this. No matte screen?! Come on, I really wanted one. I've had a MacBook with C2D in 2006!
Wow! 15" starting at £1500?! I paid a little bit more than that for a 2.53 C2D almost two years ago and that was grossly overpriced then. At least, our unibodies' price will remain high.
I understand their predicament, but I don't understand why they couldn't have made room for a custom discrete GPU small enough in size to fit in the case. While it may be an upgrade to the existing Macbook Pro 13", it is not ideal.
The next-generation ATI Radon 5000 series having been out for ~6 months. The mobile parts haven't been out as long, but still it's been quite a while, and easily enough time for Apple to have switched to them for their laptops.
Apple should have tossed Nvidia and their old technology (These "new" 320/330M chips are basically re-branded "200M" series, which were themselves re-brands of the 9000M.. and it goes on.. The actual core architecture is pretty old in GPU terms, although decent enough.)
The newer ATI Radeon Mobility 5000 series is more advanced, more power efficient, and supports new software standards like DirectX 11, OpenGL 4.0, etc.
I'm not an AMD/ATI partisan, but this time they clearly are the forerunners in terms of performance, architecture, feature support, power efficiency, etc.
Not to mention Nvidia's (heavily delayed) next-generation "Fermi" desktop GPU was just released last week and nearly produces the same heat as a nuclear reactor, consuming an enormous amount of power. It will never see a mobile version, certainly nothing that can be used in a Mac.
If anything, they could have gone to ATI for the 15" and 17"!
The next-generation ATI Radon 5000 series having been out for ~6 months. The mobile parts haven't been out as long, but still it's been quite a while, and easily enough time for Apple to have switched to them for their laptops.
Apple should have tossed Nvidia and their old technology (These "new" 320/330M chips are basically re-branded "200M" series, which were themselves re-brands of the 9000M.. and it goes on.. The actual core architecture is pretty old in GPU terms, although decent enough.)
The newer ATI Radeon Mobility 5000 series is more advanced, more power efficient, and supports new software standards like DirectX 11, OpenGL 4.0, etc.
I'm not an AMD/ATI partisan, but this time they clearly are the forerunners in terms of performance, architecture, feature support, power efficiency, etc.
Not to mention Nvidia's (heavily delayed) next-generation "Fermi" desktop GPU was just released last week and nearly produces the same heat as a nuclear reactor, consuming an enormous amount of power. It will never see a mobile version, certainly nothing that can be used in a Mac.
If anything, they could have gone to ATI for the 15" and 17"!
Because "nobody wants to watch video on an Ipod".
In other words, Apple marketing (and the turtlenecked one) say whatever favors the gadget of the moment. New gadget, new strategy. Few fans remember that it is a 180 degree turnaround from last week's message.
Yet, most would prefer the 180º turnaround, to the following:
The sweaty one:
January, 2007
"… and it doesn’t appeal to business customers because it doesn’t have a keyboard, which makes it not a very good email machine....So, I, I kinda look at that and I say, well, I like our strategy. I like it a lot.”"
Over three years later, and counting, Windows Mobile Series Seven, having no physical keyboard, no multi-tasking, no cut/paste, or peer-to-peer gaming, on a mobile OS slated for the distant future, makes the above mentioned scenario seem somewhat more desirable.
In other words, MS marketing (and the sweaty one) trash the gadget of the moment, only to follow suit several years later.
Oh, gaming...
Actually, now I remember that Apple used Doom 3 in their marketing for the white MacBooks in 2005 or 2006.
The new 13" should run Pac Man just fine. Age of Empires 3 will also run great.
Lux Delux? Well, you just cannot get enough, can you? Who said that Macs are not for gaming?
Actually, now I remember that Apple used Doom 3 in their marketing for the white MacBooks in 2005 or 2006.
The new 13" should run Pac Man just fine. Age of Empires 3 will also run great.
Lux Delux? Well, you just cannot get enough, can you? Who said that Macs are not for gaming?
Actually, now I remember that Apple used Doom 3 in their marketing for the white MacBooks in 2005 or 2006.
The new 13" should run Pac Man just fine. Age of Empires 3 will also run great.
Lux Delux? Well, you just cannot get enough, can you? Who said that Macs are not for gaming?
Notebooks are not primary for gaming. The 13" MBP will do just fine for older and even most recent games i bet.
Doom 3, Call of Duty 4, World of Warcraft, Neverwinter Nights 2, all run well on the current 13" MBP.
Re-open Waiting for Arrandale
I would like to suggest re-opening the Waiting for Arrandale thread. After all, we still are.
I would like to suggest re-opening the Waiting for Arrandale thread. After all, we still are.
Money
And there you have it. You are totally right and this is the real reason for the lack of Core i5. Nothing to do with engineering challenges. Everything to do with the bottom line. Apple knows that whatever they throw out there, people will buy it. Crap2duo processors are a bargain compared to Core i5s. More money for Apple. Shows you how much they care about the quality of your computer experience.
Crap2duo processors will be discontinued by Intel in June I hear. So Apple figured they'd suck some extra dollars from the market by hanging on to the crap2duo for a little while longer. In June they'll offer Core i3s (again underpowering the 13 inch) because they also will be cheaper than i5s.
This is the consequence of their "fixed price, improved performance" policy. Unfortunately, the 13 inch didn't get much performance improvements. Apple got a lot more "performance" out of the fixed price though.
Really unimpressive behaviour by Apple. I must say.
Join the No crap2duo on the 13 inch Macbook Pro! group at
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=114132048604514
And there you have it. You are totally right and this is the real reason for the lack of Core i5. Nothing to do with engineering challenges. Everything to do with the bottom line. Apple knows that whatever they throw out there, people will buy it. Crap2duo processors are a bargain compared to Core i5s. More money for Apple. Shows you how much they care about the quality of your computer experience.
Crap2duo processors will be discontinued by Intel in June I hear. So Apple figured they'd suck some extra dollars from the market by hanging on to the crap2duo for a little while longer. In June they'll offer Core i3s (again underpowering the 13 inch) because they also will be cheaper than i5s.
This is the consequence of their "fixed price, improved performance" policy. Unfortunately, the 13 inch didn't get much performance improvements. Apple got a lot more "performance" out of the fixed price though.
Really unimpressive behaviour by Apple. I must say.
Join the No crap2duo on the 13 inch Macbook Pro! group at
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=114132048604514
Oh, Jesus!
I would join anything, even some creepy sect to scream about the arrogance of including a half a decade old chip in a £1249 computer.
But Facebook?! That's a bit too far. That's the work of evil!
I would join anything, even some creepy sect to scream about the arrogance of including a half a decade old chip in a £1249 computer.
But Facebook?! That's a bit too far. That's the work of evil!
The 320 and 330 are actually based on the G200 Core (think same family as the GTX 295). Not the G92 (think 8800/9800 core). So at least Apple is DX10.1/OGL3.2 compliant now.
Using six years old games as a reference for graphics performance really makes them look like idiots...
Question: why would you want to run a program like Aperture or any multimedia editing program on laptop with such a small screen?
I'd rather use a MacBook Pro with a larger screen for such work, and in this case Apple is probably right (the regulars on the MacBreak Weekly podcast usually use 15" or 17" MacBook Pros).
I'd rather use a MacBook Pro with a larger screen for such work, and in this case Apple is probably right (the regulars on the MacBreak Weekly podcast usually use 15" or 17" MacBook Pros).
Lol, 6 members? You must be joking right?
And who here is really going to buy a 13" MBP to game?? I mean, come on! Buy a PC for gaming (more games to choose from and cheaper). Only I'm tired of running windows so I decided to order the 13" model today. I've only been waiting for like 3 weeks (had no idea of new MBP's being released in the first place). It's fast enough for Ableton live and portable enough to take it anywhere. I can't justify myself paying 550 ($750) more for the base model 15".
how about buying a 13" for full portability when on the move and connect it to an 24" monitor when at home. not everybody can afford a MBP AND an iMac, especially not students...
Yeah, depressing... I know that is only one benchmark, but it really not that much of an improvement from my Original 2006 MacBook (2637) with a 2.0 ghz Core Duo.
Yes. Geekbench is a lousy benchmark which doesn't have much relationship to real life.
Why not run some tests on things you use to see what the real performance improvement is? If you use Cinebench or Handbrake, use those. If you play games, do those (most games will be a LOT faster on the new system). If all you do is email and word processing, then the Geekbench scores are probably meaningful - and an upgrade wouldn't do much good.
You don't understand it because you've apparently never had to do product development and you're not willing to listen to Apple - who designed the computer.
Using your solution would mean:
- discrete GPU - which adds weight, generates heat, and draws extra power
- i3 uses 10 W more than C2D
- Added size in the circuit board to make room for discrete GPU
- Bigger or faster fans to cool the hotter CPU and discrete CPU
- Bigger batteries to achieve same charge life or shorter charge life
- Higher cost for all of the above
- AND, most likely, a larger form factor which reduces the appeal of the MBP and forces an expensive redesign
I really wish people would stop with the "it's trivial - just add a discrete GPU" when they don't have any concept of what it takes to design a new product. There are always tradeoffs in designing complicated new products. Given the choice between taking Apple's word for the tradeoffs vs some anonymous person on MacRumors who says it's trivial, I know who I'll believe.
Or maybe, just maybe, Apple knows more about computer design and marketing than you do? Do you think that's possible?
Not necessarily. If those are the games that people are likely to play on this system, it's quite relevant. I really don't expect that too many people are going to buy the 13" MBP for state of the art games, so the ones Apple used might be more relevant than using Crysis, for example.
Let me guess, you're the kind of person that writes stuff like M$ and Winblows in an effort to seem edgy and clever?
Both the GeForce 320M and GT 330M are based off of a 40 nm GT216. The core configuration is 48:16:8. The closest desktop comparison would be the GT 220.The 320 and 330 are actually based on the G200 Core (think same family as the GTX 295). Not the G92 (think 8800/9800 core). So at least Apple is DX10.1/OGL3.2 compliant now.
Geekbnech is a scalable and core aware application just like Handbrake and Cinebench. It does run a barrage of synthetic tests but you're going to see it scale much like the other two applications.
The 15/17" models are using the "hotter" 35 W standard voltage Arrandale parts. This of course includes the onboard IGP in that TDP rating alongside the processor.
This doesn't appear to alter idle performance but at load the new Arrandale based notebooks do appear to have a slightly shorter battery life compared to their predecessors. Then again this is offset by the gains in performance from a 2 core, 4 thread processor.
I think I've covered the 2 chip (processor + platform controller/IGP) requirements for the current 13" MacBook logicboard design quite enough the past two days.
I think I've covered the 2 chip (processor + platform controller/IGP) requirements for the current 13" MacBook logicboard design quite enough the past two days.
Well, you've sure said a lot about it, but you've never explained how you get around the fact that it would be larger, heavier, use more power, shorten battery life, and add cost.
You've also failed to explain why anyone should believe that you know more about computer hardware design than Apple.