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

[mosx]

Who buys a Mac for gaming? The people who buy Macs are generally more sophisticated. Macs are a lifestlye choice for those who prefer reliability and elegance and not just specs.

I'm just fine with occasionally playing a Steam game. It's not my life and I don't care about picking up an extra 5fps on my opponent.

rofl thanks for the laugh.

First thing on the internet to make me laugh out loud all day.

Thats just.. funny. Macs are a lifestyle choice? How?

I'm sorry, but computers are tools. Not fashion accessories. No matter how much Apple would like to have us believe otherwise, computers are tools, will always be tools, and will never be fashion accessories.

 

[Jack Lithian]

Fast enough for Ableton live and other music apps?

I've been waiting for a new 13" model only about a month now so no 6 month nailbiting for me. I currently own a desktop AMD 3800+ X2 with 1024mb DDR 400mhz ram (ancient). I think the basemodel will do great for me, ok it's not an i5 processor but do I really need a 15" model which costs €550 ($750) more only to surf the internet, watch an occasional movie and work with Ableton live and other music apps?
Also, the €550 will buy me a very decent 24" screen on the side with money to spare.

 

[sjinsjca]

Some people here would argue over anything.

I disagree!

 

[dusk007]

People that buy Macs don't think they buy gaming machines but they think an expensive Notebook should also be able to produce reasonable frame rates.
Reasonable in as the current tech allows.

 

[jmull]

But it's LAAAAAARRRRRRRGEEEEEEEE more expensive.

MBP's 'are' expensive. Therefor they should have premium parts, not C2D's.

 

[deconstruct60]

That is not really true.
The memory controller is in the cpu -> so the chipset doesn't need it and consumes less power.

Is minimally true though if have to had a discrete GPU and VRAM though to the complete system though. (It isn't just the memory controller but the IGP that is put into the CPU package. The Intel IGP gets better battery life than the 320M does. That is a contributing factor to the 15" and 17" increases, turning the Nvidia GPU off. )

The tradeoff is either go marginally backwards in GPU performance or go forward in GPU and take a margin increase in CPU.

For mostly single user workloads with not too much parallelism the trade off them made makes sense. If were going to get a 13" to put high computational, non high end 3D graphics GPU workloads on it then it is a bad tradeoff.

 

[Manie Frizzle]

hopefully in the fall an update would remove the super drive from the 13" to make room for an i3/i5 with a dedicated gpu. at least give us that option. i'll definitely jump on that.

 

[DLovett]

I pulled the plug on the new 13", even though I had the old 13" base.

I could upgrade for $ 150, which where live is cheaper than what you can get HDD+RAM upgrade for. On top of that, I get a slighty faster processor, almost twice as fast graphics and intertia scrolling(lol).

Somehow, in Apple money this makes sense, even though I was hoping hard for a i5 in the top level 13" and raged hard when I saw the C2D's.

 

[kaiserben]

MBP's 'are' expensive. Therefor they should have premium parts, not C2D's.

The 13" Sony Vaio Z with ix and discrete graphic cards are more expensive than the MBP. Something about 700$.

I would buy it if i need it but i don't.

 

[cvaldes]

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

That's basically what Steve wrote, right?

My guess is that Apple hardware engineering built a number of prototypes using different combinations of parts, evaluated performance (CPU, graphics, battery life, heat, etc.), compared costs, and decided that the C2D now shipping is the best marriage of price & performance at this time.

 

[NT1440]

4GB RAM standard is a very nice surprise

 

[troop231]

lmao, bow to teh Steve

 

[sjo]

That was a pretty pleasant response from Steve. Nicer than I would have expected based on his recent email replies.

So apparently we have at least two "Steve"s at Apple replying these mails nowadays.

 

[lilo777]

Who buys a Mac for gaming? The people who buy Macs are generally more sophisticated. Macs are a lifestlye choice for those who prefer reliability and elegance and not just specs.

I'm just fine with occasionally playing a Steam game. It's not my life and I don't care about picking up an extra 5fps on my opponent.

Is that how you see yourself? Some people call it sophistication others just think it's dumb.

 

[crucius]

4GB RAM standard is a very nice surprise

it is? oh my God is this the update of our lives and i'm missing it somehow?

 

[deconstruct60]

Who buys a 13" macbook for gaming unless the only game that they're playing is Farmville?

All the people that can't afford a 15" MacBookPro.

Have to remember since there is only one one vendor and Apple has relatively strict pricing separation that this is alway what is available at a specific price point. Some folks budgets stop at $1600. That won't get you a brand new MBP 15".

If money and weight aren't part of the set of primary purchasing constraints then there is nothing to complain about. That isn't true for everyone.

It isn't just Farmville. There are lots of older , still playing games that would run on 9400 and even the Arrandale IGP. What these lines of discussions often degenerate into are "how come can't paly <insert latest highest fringe end > 3D graphics game on the the entry 'Pro' product". As if "Pro" meant to be short for "targeted for the professional game player" market.

 

[montecarloss919]

Presumably the reason Apple gave. Why is everyone searching for something more nefarious? Do you really think that Jobs went to the basement, found a janitor, and asked him to choose the CPU for the new MB?



Maybe, just maybe, Apple isn't after the 'geeks who attend gaming convention' market.

Couldn't agree more..sorry I was trying to sound half sarcastic lol

 

[Manderby]

I just bought one of the new 13" today for private use. Waited for this release and I'm fine with the specs. No need to have a newer or faster processor, never had had or seen problems on any computer in our group with the C2D. The i7 althought, ... I just think it produces much more heat, but I'm not an expert.

Why complaining about speed? I need a computer to do heavy computations, but my true work gets done in the time between computations, not therein. I'm using the computer as a helping tool, not as a replacement. It's not that a faster computer would make me think faster.

 

[kenman884]

PC trolls are insane to go after the 13" MBP. It, of all the models released, is the most solid. C2D + 320m (custom made for Apple, so it most likely has even better performance than expected) is a lot better than i3 + Intel GPU. And if they included a discrete GPU instead, to fit thermal, spatial, and power restrictions, it would probably be even less powerful than the 310m on the Asus computer that one user keeps smugly pointing to- which, by the way, is less powerful, absolutely GIANT, and has HORRENDOUS build quality. (Asus claims 9.5 hours....? The review got 5. At most. My MBP usually gets 6 hours (claimed 7), and I have the higher processor (3.06) and usually keep my display very bright.)

I'm confused why people are complaining. Notebookcheck.net has no benchmarks, but the GPU they claimed it was based on was actually more powerful than the 9600m GT in previous MBPs. I know that doesn't exactly translate to the integrated version, because it's most likely clocked lower and shared memory has an impact, but I think we can expect some pretty huge real world performance gains over the 9400m, which I found to be much beefier in my own gaming than was suggested. Plus- 48 cores vs 16? Are you kidding me? How can you doubt the performance of this card? I would expect twice the performance AT LEAST.

I am very satisfied with this update from Apple. Sure you won't find the same gaming performance or whatever as in a laptop specifically made for gamers, but that isn't the point. Apple makes beautiful laptops that can do almost anything you want very very well. They have a great balance between power, cost, build quality, and size. Points of interest- The upgraded resolution option on the MBP 15" is awesome. I would have taken that in a heartbeat. Plus they brought back the matte option for those who use their laptops outside all the time....

I'm a little disappointed in the higher end GPU. It's a slight update to the 9600m, but I think Apple could have done more. Like add a 360m as an option in the 17". But the 330m is beefy enough for most games (MW2 is playable in high), and the other benefits of the new MBPs far outweigh the mediocre graphics update.

 

[aristokrat]

From all this nerdrage about power/etc., I'm guessing a lot of you don't actually use laptops on your laps. An i-series processor demands a discrete graphics chip (has everyone so easily forgotten how TERRIBLE intel's integrated graphics chips are? they were only the main point of discontent post-Intel transition until the nVidia switch), and while I'm sure you could physically fit all that into the 13" frame, what are you going to do about thermal management once you turn the thing on? You'd probably feel the heat coming up through the keyboard (hey wait, I remember people complaining about that in past MBP's as well!). There are people out there who bought a laptop because they don't want to be chained to a desk or thermal pad.

If only bottom plate avg/peak temperature was one of the spec's people would care about, that would help fight against Intel's marketing push for the i3 over the C2D.

 

[ddTaylor]

I'll be the first to say I agree with Jobs on this one. Come on guys, they aren't idiots.

Killer graphics on a 13" display that is not even capable of displaying full 1080P like sub $800 Dell XPS notebooks from over 1-year ago? Really? The i3, i5 and i7 all have similar battery performance yet Mr. Jobs made the choice for us when it comes to performance. Who wants to play a game on a 13" display when it is not even able to show full 1080P? This was a way to milk even more money from users who want an Apple product but cannot afford the 15" or simply do not want the larger form-factor - yet still need/want an upgrade. This is silly - and insulting to think that users and bloggers cannot see through this line of junk. I am ashamed and disappointed with Apple on this update. The hurbris of Apple continues to grow and grow.

You may agree with Mr. Jobs on this one but many others do not. I want the latest CPU and best performance from my new $1300 MBP. I realize you cannot compare other brands of computers to Apple but you can compare raw hardware and when a 1-year old Dell XPS has a C2D at 2.66GHz, full 1080P, 4GB RAM and a 320GB HD with HDMI out, loads more inputs and outputs with Express and PCMCI for $1099 1-year ago - and less today with even faster core i5's and a better full 1080P display - it is a shame what Apple did to the customer. I am sorry you cannot see that.

D

 

[mikeo007]

PC trolls are insane to go after the 13" MBP. It, of all the models released, is the most solid. C2D + 320m (custom made for Apple, so it most likely has even better performance than expected) is a lot better than i3 + Intel GPU. And if they included a discrete GPU instead, to fit thermal, spatial, and power restrictions, it would probably be even less powerful than the 310m on the Asus computer that one user keeps smugly pointing to- which, by the way, is less powerful, absolutely GIANT, and has HORRENDOUS build quality. (Asus claims 9.5 hours....? The review got 5. At most. My MBP usually gets 6 hours (claimed 7), and I have the higher processor (3.06) and usually keep my display very bright.)

I'm confused why people are complaining. Notebookcheck.net has no benchmarks, but the GPU they claimed it was based on was actually more powerful than the 9600m GT in previous MBPs. I know that doesn't exactly translate to the integrated version, because it's most likely clocked lower and shared memory has an impact, but I think we can expect some pretty huge real world performance gains over the 9400m, which I found to be much beefier in my own gaming than was suggested. Plus- 48 cores vs 16? Are you kidding me? How can you doubt the performance of this card? I would expect twice the performance AT LEAST.

I am very satisfied with this update from Apple. Sure you won't find the same gaming performance or whatever as in a laptop specifically made for gamers, but that isn't the point. Apple makes beautiful laptops that can do almost anything you want very very well. They have a great balance between power, cost, build quality, and size. Points of interest- The upgraded resolution option on the MBP 15" is awesome. I would have taken that in a heartbeat. Plus they brought back the matte option for those who use their laptops outside all the time....

I'm a little disappointed in the higher end GPU. It's a slight update to the 9600m, but I think Apple could have done more. Like add a 360m as an option in the 17". But the 330m is beefy enough for most games (MW2 is playable in high), and the other benefits of the new MBPs far outweigh the mediocre graphics update.

This seems like an angry post, so I'm not going to pick at it, but I must comment on the bolded part:

NO!

They claimed it was similar to the 310m which is nowhere near the performance level of the 9600m GT.

"The gaming performance of the GeForce 320M should be compareable to a GeForce 310M and even better."

"The GeForce 320M is not similar to the GeForce GT 320M, which is based on a GeForce 9600M GT."

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-320M.28701.0.html

 

[deconstruct60]

RESEARCH tells me - the Asus is heavier, thicker and has half the battery life.

You forgot the cheaper display too. They aren't backlighting an IPS display either.

The 1366 x 768-resolution, 13.3-inch screen is incredibly glossy and kicks back reflections at most angles. And speaking of those angles, the horizontal and vertical viewing angles are, well, just crappy – tilting the screen back just to about 110-degrees washes out colors and viewing from the sides is also harrowing experience.

that said some people place different weightings on size, weight, screen , etc. For them it may work. However, Apples-to-Apples comparisons will keep all of the other system tradeoff factors exactly (or very minor differences) and still do the same job.
Apple makes different system level tradeoff decisions than many other vendors do. Not just on "quality" either. Just different.

 

[str1f3]

Is that how you see yourself? Some people call it sophistication others just think it's dumb.

Yes. Too bad you don't see yourself the same way but I'm sure there's a good reason. Maybe when you grow up but, hopefully,it'll come.

Meanwhile I know what I need for my life and this update can handle the job.

rofl thanks for the laugh.

First thing on the internet to make me laugh out loud all day.

Thats just.. funny. Macs are a lifestyle choice? How?

I'm sorry, but computers are tools. Not fashion accessories. No matter how much Apple would like to have us believe otherwise, computers are tools, will always be tools, and will never be fashion accessories.

Yes, they are a lifestyle choice. Many that choose Macs don't choose them because they're priced better or can get software that isn't available for Windows, they choose them because they are more aesthetically pleasing in hardware & software . That is why is creative professionals choose the Mac.

If a computer is just a tool for you then use Windows because, by your own admission, you are getting robbed.

 

[lilo777]

I pulled the plug on the new 13", even though I had the old 13" base.

I could upgrade for $ 150, which where live is cheaper than what you can get HDD+RAM upgrade for. On top of that, I get a slighty faster processor, almost twice as fast graphics and intertia scrolling(lol).

Somehow, in Apple money this makes sense, even though I was hoping hard for a i5 in the top level 13" and raged hard when I saw the C2D's.

In Apple money? Maybe. Too bad we have to pay for these laptops in real money.