It may be...but I guarantee we could go bench crazy and I'll show you more improvement from an i3/i5 and Intel graphics versus a C2D and Nvidia integrated graphics. You see all those bench improvements for the 15"/17"? Yea...you won't see any of those improvements on the 13" other than from the minor speed increase.
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
It may be...but I guarantee we could go bench crazy and I'll show you more improvement from an i3/i5 and Intel graphics versus a C2D and Nvidia integrated graphics. You see all those bench improvements for the 15"/17"? Yea...you won't see any of those improvements on the 13" other than from the minor speed increase.
Why is the 9to5Mac quote different?
http://www.9to5mac.com/steve-jobs-email-core-i7-duo-340973462
Just a different email?
http://www.9to5mac.com/steve-jobs-email-core-i7-duo-340973462
Just a different email?
Have to call BS on this - the reason Apple isn't using Arrandale in the 13" MBP is the same reason they waited so long to introduce it in the 15/17", and the same reason they raised the price of the entry-level 15", and the same reason they made the default CPU on the 17" a 2.53 instead of a 2.66:
Chip supply.
Apple clearly came to the conclusion that they're not going to be able to source enough i3s/i5s from Intel right now to rely on them for their most popular system. So they use graphics and battery life as convenient excuses for not upgrading, then 6 months from now, when supplies are less constrained, they'll do the upgrade and tout the improved performance. ("our fastest MacBook ever")
Likewise, the 17" gets a $200 price cut and a midrange CPU because they'd rather ration their limited stock of i7s for the people who care enough about them to go to the trouble of special-ordering and paying extra; many graphics professionals will be happy with 2.53 GHz as long as they've got the new GPU and the big screen, and while under ordinary circumstances Apple would rather wring that extra $200 out of them, in this case they don't have the chips.
And the entry-level 15" gets a price increase because they don't think they'll be able to get enough i5s for the number of units they'd be able to sell at the old $1700 price point.
So it's all just a chip supply problem, plain and simple - they had to do some sort of update now, but they're not going to be able to get enough i5s/i7s to arrange the product line in the way they really want to until later in the year.
Chip supply.
Apple clearly came to the conclusion that they're not going to be able to source enough i3s/i5s from Intel right now to rely on them for their most popular system. So they use graphics and battery life as convenient excuses for not upgrading, then 6 months from now, when supplies are less constrained, they'll do the upgrade and tout the improved performance. ("our fastest MacBook ever")
Likewise, the 17" gets a $200 price cut and a midrange CPU because they'd rather ration their limited stock of i7s for the people who care enough about them to go to the trouble of special-ordering and paying extra; many graphics professionals will be happy with 2.53 GHz as long as they've got the new GPU and the big screen, and while under ordinary circumstances Apple would rather wring that extra $200 out of them, in this case they don't have the chips.
And the entry-level 15" gets a price increase because they don't think they'll be able to get enough i5s for the number of units they'd be able to sell at the old $1700 price point.
So it's all just a chip supply problem, plain and simple - they had to do some sort of update now, but they're not going to be able to get enough i5s/i7s to arrange the product line in the way they really want to until later in the year.
Less performance, a little bit less battery life , less screen quality... 200$ less. It's a choice, I do the Apple choice
Okay, forget about size, what about heat? Aren't the core i3 35W TDP, which is way more then what the heatsink with 1 fan can handle if we put that PLUS a video card diode?
Killer graphics...
So to me this makes the MBP13 into a gaming machine? I wouldn't think that's the target market/demographic. Now, if you tell me that the graphics card is going to improve things like Keynote, Safari/HTML5, iPhoto, and VM apps then I'm in.
Also, I'm surprised we don't see at least one VM benchmark. I agree with an earlier comment ... who's using Doom? It's like benchmarking HyperCard ... let's see a "real world" metric.
So to me this makes the MBP13 into a gaming machine? I wouldn't think that's the target market/demographic. Now, if you tell me that the graphics card is going to improve things like Keynote, Safari/HTML5, iPhoto, and VM apps then I'm in.
Also, I'm surprised we don't see at least one VM benchmark. I agree with an earlier comment ... who's using Doom? It's like benchmarking HyperCard ... let's see a "real world" metric.
Less performance, a little bit less battery life , less screen quality... 200$ less. It's a choice, I do the Apple choice
Like I said, nice research there.
Tony
Doom 3? Really?
I wonder how it performs on PONG!
Tony
I think you have to turn off the turbo option with pong, otherwise the pong moves too fast
The Doom 3 engine has better graphics than WOW. Its not necessarily saying people still play Doom 3 it's showing how well it runs the engine. Benchmarks are easily cooked in this manner. Since the Doom 3 engine isn't really used by many companies as they opt for the Unreal 3 engine. It would have been better for them to show off benchmarks running Unreal 3. WOW's biggest hit is on the CPU not the GPU due to the amount of users on screen more so than graphic capabilities.
No and Maybe
Nowhere close to a 9600m GT, and a bit better than the 9400, although the 310m that notebook check compares it to is only about 10% faster than the 9400
Perhaps but lol.... Um Steve, you pretty much just said indirectly, that the 15" & 17" cpu upgrades aren't very good lol!!!
Rudy you've just bought the biggest macbook ever. I'm sure apple could have squeezed a discrete graphics card in it somewhere.
Back on topic. Surely this is all about intel vs Nvidia which has been done ad nauseum over the last few hours. I'm sorely tempted to buy a base 13" MPB. I'd rather have a better (although obviously not brilliant) graphics solution and a Core2Duo over a marginally better processor and an awful Intel integrated graphics solution.
My current Core Duo MB is starting to get a bit long in the tooth, and these new 13" MBP fit the bill for me perfectly.
the reason many (not all) people buy the 13" Macbook Pro is because the 15" is too expensive.... Why not make a cheap (C2D) 15" macbook pro? Could you imagine, a 15" MBP at 1200 euro? Most of the PC laptops are also 15" or 16".... Can somebody send Steve an email please?
It's funny how hilariously out of date all of these games are. Even the iPhone 3GS can run Doom 3 and Unreal 2 engine games well.
Apple should really give up using Mac OS game benchmarks in marketing materials: we've seen that same Doom 3 benchmark for the last 6 years.
Apple should really give up using Mac OS game benchmarks in marketing materials: we've seen that same Doom 3 benchmark for the last 6 years.
It's 320m, which has been designed especially for Apple... And from what I've seen I thought it was from 40% to 80% faster over the 9400m
Man, Jobs has been quite the Chatty Cathy lately.
Last gens will drop to that price point soon enough, if they're not there already.Why not make a cheap (C2D) 15" macbook pro? Could you imagine, a 15" MBP at 1200 euro? Most of the PC laptops are also 15" or 16".... Can somebody send Steve an email please?
Not all decisions are technical.
There's deep politics here. Intel vs nvidia, intel vs apple etc etc
At first I thought this was a rubbish update but really the specs add up with a different focus (battery, graphics, opencl/grand central - remember!)
However this is an interim at a good price make no mistake.
There's deep politics here. Intel vs nvidia, intel vs apple etc etc
At first I thought this was a rubbish update but really the specs add up with a different focus (battery, graphics, opencl/grand central - remember!)
However this is an interim at a good price make no mistake.
Yes, they can ! And it would be a 1900$ laptop like the viao Z
Don't forget slightly thicker and less battery life, which would give ppl something else to complain about.
A good update
Those are amazing battery life numbers, 10 hours! (and I thought my last-gen 7 hour battery was impressive). That, along with better video performance should continue to make entry-level MB Pro users happy, PLUS it makes me happy that my late-09 model isn't a total dog yet
I could have seen the Core i3 being a BTO option for the die-hard Intel fanboys ,tho.
Those are amazing battery life numbers, 10 hours! (and I thought my last-gen 7 hour battery was impressive). That, along with better video performance should continue to make entry-level MB Pro users happy, PLUS it makes me happy that my late-09 model isn't a total dog yet
I could have seen the Core i3 being a BTO option for the die-hard Intel fanboys ,tho.
WOW's biggest hit is on the CPU not the GPU due to the amount of users on screen more so than graphic capabilities.
Bingo - Dalaran has low frame rates due to CPU consumption - it has nothing to do with the graphics requirements.
I laugh at people who say they are "lagged" in Dalaran. They're not lagged and it's not their internet connection, their computer is underpowered.