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
Steve Jobs is putting Apple's PR team out of business
I'm getting pretty used to Steve's personal responses to these micro-level questions.
I agree with the hardware choices made for the new MacBook Pro 13". The extra battery life is worth the opportunity cost of skipping the i3.
I'm getting pretty used to Steve's personal responses to these micro-level questions.
I agree with the hardware choices made for the new MacBook Pro 13". The extra battery life is worth the opportunity cost of skipping the i3.
For those who want a portable game machine to run the new HITS, the Alienware M11x is a great choice !
For those who want a built in quality laptop, big battery life and play sometimes to old games, the MBP 13" is a great choice !
All is about your need
For those who want a built in quality laptop, big battery life and play sometimes to old games, the MBP 13" is a great choice !
All is about your need
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
Yes, it is a specially designed unit specifically for Apple, but it is similar to the 310m, although a bit more powerful. Don't let Apple's numbers fool you though, 80% is a pipe dream. 40% is aiming high, but I could see it if there is a substantial boost from the 310m. I'm guessing more around a 25% overall increase, maybe hitting 40% is specialized situations. For an integrated card, it's probably one of the best, but when compared to most dedicated cards, it falls way behind.
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.
Ha, I too am gauging the sticking power of my Mid-2009 13" MBP. I agree that the iterative upgrades demonstrated in that form factor keep ours pretty valuable.
If you joined in 2004, you should know that's generally how it goes around here: people complain when the numbers aren't hugely bigger, and then a few hours or days later, when the benchmarks come out, it becomes obvious that they're actually pretty decent (if not always GREAT) updates.
You get more bang for your buck with these than the C2D models, that's for sure. I'm still waiting on a Mac Pro refresh, myself… with Lightpeak, maybe?
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/264538-28-core-core-e8400-clarkdale-benchmarked
Everyone is getting hung-up on i3 versus Core 2 Duo . Perhaps there wasn't enough performance gain to make the price increase worthwhile? Perhaps others can do some real research and find solid numbers comparing i3 and c2d in the speed classes offered by the Macbook Pro 13".
The above URL indicates, for the 3.06ghz version of i3 and Core 2 equivalent, that the gains are minimal.
Everyone is getting hung-up on i3 versus Core 2 Duo . Perhaps there wasn't enough performance gain to make the price increase worthwhile? Perhaps others can do some real research and find solid numbers comparing i3 and c2d in the speed classes offered by the Macbook Pro 13".
The above URL indicates, for the 3.06ghz version of i3 and Core 2 equivalent, that the gains are minimal.
no, the 9600M is a dedicated GPU and its own memory. the GT 320M is an integrated gpu with shared memory. also it's 80% faster than the 9400m according to Apple, so it's still weaker than a 8600M...
I wonder how many people are employed full time to sift through his various email inboxes: with all these replies he must be getting an awful lot of mail these days.
You're absolutely right, it's definitively NOT a gaming machine. But I don't why they would lie about benchmarks they post... Because in few days, lot of internet sites will perform their benchmarks too, and if it's false, not such good publicity for them.
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/performance.html
From 30% to 80% superior to 9400m
I would almost agree, if it wasn't for hyperthreading and turbo boost- the admittedly few processor-heavy activities I do would greatly benefit from those two bits of tech.
What?
13" is a GREAT size, (especially compare to ipads or netbooks..) I feel very comfortable with a 13" screen, 15 & 17" are way too bulky/heavy to carry around for me, the AIR ones lack too much in connectivity/performance to my taste, which make the MBP13 the best compromise.
It's just a shame they don't get arrandale and matte screen option, which would make them deserve the "pro" appellation.
I also miss the express card slot, instead of this stupid SD slot which is more consumer...
If you joined in 2004, you should know that's generally how it goes around here: people complain when the numbers aren't hugely bigger, and then a few hours or days later, when the benchmarks come out, it becomes obvious that they're actually pretty decent (if not always GREAT) updates.
You get more bang for your buck with these than the C2D models, that's for sure. I'm still waiting on a Mac Pro refresh, myself with Lightpeak, maybe?
So how much longer are we going to have to wait for the Mac Pro update?
It's long overdue. From the lack of chatter, you and I may be the only ones wanting a Mac Pro update.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
He said the CPU gains would be minimal, yet they advertise the new 15"/17" are so much faster--so he's implying that if they had used iX chips it would have been i3 maybe?
Also are discrete graphics chips much bigger than they used to be? The iBooks and PB 12" had discrete graphics and they were smaller than the 13" MB in some dimensions.
Also are discrete graphics chips much bigger than they used to be? The iBooks and PB 12" had discrete graphics and they were smaller than the 13" MB in some dimensions.
Doom 3? Really?
I wonder how it performs on PONG!
Tony
This is my favorite reply to the thread thus far. lol
From a gamer nerd's perspective -- that be me... The iXs aren't a huge boost over the Core 2s.
My PC is running an i7 920 with a GTX 275. I upgraded from a Q9450(Core 2 Quad 45nm), which is the same base clock speed. Anyways, in the games I was able to play on both, the difference was very minor, only a frame or two in benchmarks, or when running FRAPS. The GPU is substantially more important than the CPU and these CPUs are fast enough to feed them for the most part.
Technically the Core 2 is better than the i5 as it can hyperthread, but the ladder is a bit faster overall -- I helped my friend and his son piece together an i5 rig for Christmas.
Here are some of the games I "own" which I've played on both CPUs for reference, as in the i7 didn't really do squat over my Core 2 Quad;
Resident Evil 5
Mass Effect 1
L4D 1/2
Counter Strike Source
GTA IV
Dead Space
Wolfenstein(The new one.)
GRID
Dirt
Gears of War
Fallout 3
BioShock
Mirrors Edge
The Witcher Enhanced.
Anyways, I own more games of course like Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age, but I never played them on my prior CPU. This newer 3200m is definitely better than the 9400m, but like the 330m, Eh, but I'll take a 330 over my 9600m on my Mac.
The iXs aren't a huge boost over the Core 2s.My PC is running an i7 920 with a GTX 275. I upgraded from a Q9450(Core 2 Quad 45nm), which is the same base clock speed. Anyways, in the games I was able to play on both, the difference was very minor, only a frame or two in benchmarks, or when running FRAPS. The GPU is substantially more important than the CPU and these CPUs are fast enough to feed them for the most part.
Technically the Core 2 is better than the i5 as it can hyperthread, but the ladder is a bit faster overall -- I helped my friend and his son piece together an i5 rig for Christmas.
Here are some of the games I "own" which I've played on both CPUs for reference, as in the i7 didn't really do squat over my Core 2 Quad;
Resident Evil 5
Mass Effect 1
L4D 1/2
Counter Strike Source
GTA IV
Dead Space
Wolfenstein(The new one.)
GRID
Dirt
Gears of War
Fallout 3
BioShock
Mirrors Edge
The Witcher Enhanced.
Anyways, I own more games of course like Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age, but I never played them on my prior CPU. This newer 3200m is definitely better than the 9400m, but like the 330m, Eh, but I'll take a 330 over my 9600m on my Mac.
That's a fairly significant difference in power consumption by itself. NOW, in order to use the i3, they would have had to add discrete graphics, as well. So the CPU uses 10W more plus an extra 20W? 30W? for the discrete graphics.
Plus the higher cost.
Of course Apple could have put discrete graphics on there. But let's look at the tradeoffs:
C2D with integrated graphics vs i3 with discrete graphics:
- i3 adds 10 W power consumption PLUS the power of the GPU which would probably have required extra cooling - or limited the i3 to the slowest version
- i3 is $30-50 more expensive plus the cost of the GPU
- Extra complexity in the circuit board if using the GPU
- i3 solution would have been heavier, more expensive, and shorter battery life
Give Apple a little credit. Do you think that they didn't consider an i3? Or is that you know more about designing and building computers that sell by the hundreds of thousands than Apple does?
CLEARLY, there would have been tradeoffs. The fact that Apple chose a different solution doesn't make them stupid or evil or greedy. They just see the tradeoffs differently than a bunch of whining geeks on MacRumors. And given Apple's success over the past 10 years of meeting market needs, I'd go with Apple.
LOL @ Doom 3 benchmark. Like a previous poster, I wonder what kind of a boost this thing will give you on Pong!
Killer graphics! Steve, you can sell anything.
Killer graphics! Steve, you can sell anything.
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
You are exactly right. The speed increase they gave in this laptop product line seems like a bigger jump then ever before, and it was only updated 9 months ago when they got a better display and dramatic battery improvement. I currently use the 13" Macbook pro with 7 hours battery live (5 to 6 hours in real). I love this thing every minute of the day. After 9 month using it doesn't show any degradation just rock solid.
the 9400m was able to play modern games on medium settings (MW2, Bioshock 2, TF2, L4D2, etc) with acceptable fps of 30+ at 1024x768, in my experience. if the GT 320M is 40~80% faster I would say it is a low-end/midrange gaming gpu.
also, I doubt everyone use their MacBook Pros to play games.
+1 he can market anything and anyway he wants it
he has a new title - CMO - Chief Marketing Officer -