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
Yes. Especially since Final Cut isn't multi-core aware, you need all the speed you can get for timeline renders.
ROTFLMAO. It's funny how GPU is everything in the 'Mac sux for games' threads, but when Apple chooses a HUGE GPU increase over a marginal CPU increase that it's now all about CPU.
Why are you blaming Apple for the fact that Adobe can't write a decent Flash? Or use OpenCL in Photoshop? Blame Adobe if they don't use OpenCL.
I did some checking on Quicktime. Apparently Quicktime DOES use OpenCL:
http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/snowleopard/quicktimex.html
Safari already uses OpenCL (http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=65501)
So when are you going to stop blabbing about things you don't understand?
Oh, geez. ANOTHER Apple-hater who knows more about computer design than Apple. I really think Apple should just fire their entire design team and just come here to have faster, cheaper, lighter computers designed for them.
My evidence is that Apple says it's so in a public forum. There is a presumption that public statements are true. YOU are accusing Apple of lying, so you need to provide some evidence of that.
Based on what?
This site says otherwise:
http://www.manifest-tech.com/media_pc/video_hw_hd.htm
"Final Cut Pro is written as a multi-threaded, inherently scalable application, so it is able to take full advantage of Apple's current multi-processor systems (as is Mac OS X)."
I'm in the same boat as you...I use the computer for pretty much the same things.
I'm going to go with the 13".
1. It's portable (good for taking it to school with you)
2. The HDD can easily be replaced for a 500GB 7200rpm HDD for about $100.
3. Sure the higher res screen would be nice but what the 13" has is sufficient for doing all the things you want it to do. Plus for the $700 you can get a VERY NICE and VERY LARGE monitor to go with your laptop incase you need extra screen space.
4. The processing power is more than sufficient for the things you want to do.
5. Battery power will be close to the 10 hour mark than the 15" and 17". Just because those computers are more demanding and keep switching between the graphic cards.
My 2 cents...
"Marriage Equality - Have you talked about it with your gay friends, your gay colleagues and your gay relatives? Why not?
NOH8 "
Why does this (morally offensive to some) issue need to be "evangelized" in a computer discussion forum? I find it rather annoying, quite frankly, to have to constantly see this "banner"
NOH8 "
Why does this (morally offensive to some) issue need to be "evangelized" in a computer discussion forum? I find it rather annoying, quite frankly, to have to constantly see this "banner"
Apple doesn't give Adobe the access to API's for Flash acceleration. When you're the little 8% marketshare guy, you need to compromise with the bigger players.
There is nothing on that link that says QT uses OpenCL. GPU H264 acceleration has been around for YEARS, and it even works with Intel GPU's.
http://software.intel.com/en-us/art...tion-with-the-intel-g45gm45-express-chipsets/
You just proved your lack of intelligence there. None of your links say that Safari or QT uses openCL, it just says that such tech is available for the developers.
It seems you should be the one to **** and admit that having a 320M instead of the integrated Arrandale GPU means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to those who don't play demanding 3D games.
And even if you play games, 320M and 330M are nothing to write home about, they're low-mid range GPU's.
Does SJ ever slip and say...Intel is giving us a killer deal on the old C2D, they are dirt cheap compared to the i3/i5's. Were saving $100 per machine sold at the same price point!
They say that about Harley Davidson motorcycles. A totally different demographic, but both companies do emphasize styling, user experience and a bit of the cult mentality rather than pursuing the latest in high-reving technology in their products.
That is, of course, a blatant lie. Adobe has access to the same APIs as everyone else. Folding@Home got a 30fold increase in performance using OpenCL. Why can't Adobe use the same APIs?
More importantly, Adobe Photoshop can manipulate every bit of multi-megabyte images in fractions of a second without severely stressing the processor. Why is it that Photoshop can do it, but Flash (which is a much simpler applicatino) can't?
What part of "Safari 4 also takes advantage of the Macintosh's hardware acceleration, thanks to QuickTime X and something Apple is dubbing OpenCL." would you like for me to explain to you?
Aside from your juvenile tantrum, I never claimed that those processors were great chips by the standards of a hard core gamer. I simply repeated Jobs' statement that they had a choice of 3 options:
1. Stick with Core2Duo and MUCH faster graphics than previous version
2. Go with i3 which would have required them to use the Intel graphics which were slower than the previous version.
This would mean a marginally (few percent) faster CPU, a HUGE reduction in graphics performance, higher heat output, shorter battery life, and higher cost.
3. Completely redesign the system using i3 with discrete graphics. This would mean marginally faster CPU, faster GPU, but much higher cost, heat output, power consumption, weight, and longer time to launch.
Apple decided that option #1 was the best choice for most users. Can you give me a single reason to know that you know the tradeoffs better than Apple does or that you know the market better than Apple does?
Maybe not for marketing, but in corporate communications, you do not knowingly publish false information. The penalties are great enough that it IS reasonable to assume that when a CEO makes a simple, clear statement, that you can probably believe it.
I don't know if an email sent by a customer counts as corporate communications. Reports to shareholders, technical data to partners sound more like the sort of thing that would be subject to penalties for misinformation.
256 who voted negative, have no clue on technology and shouldn't be here in the first place.
Oh wait, this is not a forum for technology its a forum for whining and bitching!
Oh wait, this is not a forum for technology its a forum for whining and bitching!
You're obviously not a developer. Using openCL is no simple task since GPU's are NOT CPU's and have a much different architecture. Not to mention it's new. Who's going to pay for those developers?
Still images vs. video. You're talking about many seconds PER frame vs, 30 frames PER second, kapish?
Reading comprehension 101:
1. Safari doesn't use hw acceleration only QTX is using it, they're showing it as a part of Safari.
2. The part of openCL that QTX is using only pertains to the hardware H264 acceleration that's been in GPU's for years. Believe it or not, they could have included H264 acceleration without openCL, but they just included it within the openCL with hopes that people would use the real capabilities of openCL, which is using shaders as stream processors. I'm not even mentioning the huge failure of QTX since IT DOES NOT PLAY many of the popular video formats.
This is TOTAL BS. Why would Arrandale would have higher heat and shorter battery life? It's a 32nm CPU compared to 45nm C2D. The 35W rating INCLUDES the GPU. Add the C2D and the 320M, you'll get much higher than 35W. In fact, with Arrandale and IGP, you'd get higher battery life since the CPU would be more efficient. The average 13" consumer couldn't care less about reduced graphics power of the IGP, which performs similar to the 9400M, vs the 320M.
Apple did this to save money, plain and simple. While it's good for Apple, it's not good for consumers.
I believe Apple does not want to make the 13" MBP too "good", otherwise it would cannibalize sales of both the MBA and the 15" MBP. I'm sure there are a lot of people who bought the much more expensive 15" just because they wanted an i5/i7 and not because they simply wanted a bigger screen or a desktop replacement-type device.
My new 13" MBP will be here next week, and altho I'm looking forward to the machine, I believe Apple is scamming customers with it.
The battery life is industry-leading and among the top reasons I bought this device, but I would rather get a stated battery life of, say, 8 hours and an i5.
My new 13" MBP will be here next week, and altho I'm looking forward to the machine, I believe Apple is scamming customers with it.
The battery life is industry-leading and among the top reasons I bought this device, but I would rather get a stated battery life of, say, 8 hours and an i5.
Hi,
I'm stuck between the high end 13 and the high end 15. I use a lot of CAD and Adobe (hopefully CS5 very soon!) and wondered if anyone could tell me if I'll see a big difference from having an i7 and better graphics offered by the i7 as opposed to the 2.66 cd2 13? I currently use a MB black and like the size, just was hoping for i3/5/7 in the 13. Seems like I'm wasting money on a cd2...
Also I normally sell my laptop after a couple of years and upgrade... the first £1100 of my next one is sponsored so don't mind putting in the extra £600. have got better things to spend the money on though. I'm likely to see a better return on a two year old i7 2.66 than cd2 2.66 right?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated
I'm stuck between the high end 13 and the high end 15. I use a lot of CAD and Adobe (hopefully CS5 very soon!) and wondered if anyone could tell me if I'll see a big difference from having an i7 and better graphics offered by the i7 as opposed to the 2.66 cd2 13? I currently use a MB black and like the size, just was hoping for i3/5/7 in the 13. Seems like I'm wasting money on a cd2...
Also I normally sell my laptop after a couple of years and upgrade... the first £1100 of my next one is sponsored so don't mind putting in the extra £600. have got better things to spend the money on though. I'm likely to see a better return on a two year old i7 2.66 than cd2 2.66 right?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated
Given they're all called "MBP" now, the ONLY difference (beyond whatever extra goodies can fit on a larger machine) should be the screen size. Some people DO get the 13" because they want a more portable machine and they dock it at home with a 20+ inch monitor.
Choose based on the screen size. The 15" would be faster and more future-proof - but bigger and heavier.
And even "faster" is a personal choice. Do you care if something takes 8 minutes or 10 minutes - does a 2 minute improvement change your life?
Do you want to hassle with a bigger, heavier laptop for a couple of years?
kinda dumb... apple is always trailing behind with their laptop technology...
oh well, i have a mbp 13 and it does everything I need it to... if I want to game I use a pc or a console.
seeing little upgrades for the 13 makes me content with my purchase I made last year but really sucks for people who were waiting around and looking forward to the newer cpu's. and now with all this amd nonsense... it seems like apple doesn't know what the heck they're doing honestly. they keep changing hardware platforms like women change shoes.
oh well, i have a mbp 13 and it does everything I need it to... if I want to game I use a pc or a console.
seeing little upgrades for the 13 makes me content with my purchase I made last year but really sucks for people who were waiting around and looking forward to the newer cpu's. and now with all this amd nonsense... it seems like apple doesn't know what the heck they're doing honestly. they keep changing hardware platforms like women change shoes.
What?
Didn't the intel switch over happen a few years ago? And the AMD switch, if not just a rumor, would make little to no impact on consumers.
Mmmmm, Apple marketing rolls into action pretty quickly here. Technical explanations abound as to why we're ripping off the consumer dressing previous gen technology in our Pro line.
Funny this one because on the one hand Steve tells us the CPU performance upgrade to Core iX is tiny on the 13" but on the other hand Apple marketing is making a big deal of the new processor lineup in the 15/17" models.
Funny this one because on the one hand Steve tells us the CPU performance upgrade to Core iX is tiny on the 13" but on the other hand Apple marketing is making a big deal of the new processor lineup in the 15/17" models.
I don't get why people keep complaining about this. The Core 2 Duo are still very solid, very capable chips. Given the tough situation that Apple was put in by the new licensing/chipset restrictions on the i series processors I think the decision they made makes the most sense for the people who would typically purchase the 13" model. You get a decent CPU and a GPU that'll be useful for casual gaming and even more useful when more applications adopt OpenCL. This also allowed for better battery life as the i series parts are known to actually reduce battery life when compared to C2D counterparts.
As far as Apple's ambiguity regarding the i series chips I think you are looking at it wrong. The 13" would have most likely received an i3 CPU which would have been a minor speed increase at the cost of graphics performance and battery life. The 15/17" models use i5/i7 CPU which is a more considerable performance boost hence the marketing for it.
Sure I'd have liked to see an iX in the 13", but given the restrictions I, for one, prefer the Core 2 Duo w/320M and better battery life. I'm very glad I waited and didn't buy last month.