Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The New MBPs explained
- Thread starter chrmjenkins
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good post... I didn't even know about that HP laptop. Looks OK I guess...
Few observations:
-As far as I know, the panels already have tri-color backlighting
-Even if a quad core i7 would have been possible (although unlikely because of the TDP issues), I think the 1050$+ unit price would have been a big barrier
I'd like a 16:10 screen though...Might've been worth updating the enclosure for that.
Few observations:
-As far as I know, the panels already have tri-color backlighting
-Even if a quad core i7 would have been possible (although unlikely because of the TDP issues), I think the 1050$+ unit price would have been a big barrier
I'd like a 16:10 screen though...Might've been worth updating the enclosure for that.
The current panels are only white-LED backlit.
The unit price is 1k for the 920XM. The 720 is the same as the 620 practically.
MacBook Pros don't have RGBLED backlighting and the screens are already 16:10.
Yup.
Yeah, I thought the post was helpful myself. My only gripe echoing several others is the choice of discrete graphics card on the 15" or 17" models. I understood that their must be some TDP limitations, but wasn't aware of what those were in the current enclosures. Ultimately, choosing a lower-end discrete graphics chipset makes sense if it is the component of the system which requires some compromise to meet these TDP requirements for the enclosure and desired battery life.
For most people, they are going to be gaming on these laptops a bit less than other productivity tasks, and if such productivity tasks demand a lot of 3D performance, then perhaps the laptop and it's mobile graphics processor aren't the right computer hardware for your task. So, Apple's decisions seem to make sense to me in this regard. Either you can spec a notebook computer to accommodate the latest technology has to offer while increasing the bulk and sacrificing aesthetics, or maintain the lighter, aesthetic enclosure while accommodating the latest in technology while sacrificing system reliability and battery life, or you can choose the option which Apple has by including a competitively balanced and reliable system in an aesthetic and light enclosure with industry-leading battery life.
Oh, I and actually chuckled at the **** comments--I thought they added some needed humor to this forum.
For most people, they are going to be gaming on these laptops a bit less than other productivity tasks, and if such productivity tasks demand a lot of 3D performance, then perhaps the laptop and it's mobile graphics processor aren't the right computer hardware for your task. So, Apple's decisions seem to make sense to me in this regard. Either you can spec a notebook computer to accommodate the latest technology has to offer while increasing the bulk and sacrificing aesthetics, or maintain the lighter, aesthetic enclosure while accommodating the latest in technology while sacrificing system reliability and battery life, or you can choose the option which Apple has by including a competitively balanced and reliable system in an aesthetic and light enclosure with industry-leading battery life.
Oh, I and actually chuckled at the **** comments--I thought they added some needed humor to this forum.
Thank you, kind sir. I won't lie, I'm kinda bummed out about the 13" MBPs still getting stuck with C2Ds, but what you said makes sense.
Haters gonna hate lol.
Haters gonna hate lol.
So you came up with a bunch of lies to explain why Apple did so lousy job with this update? According to Wikipedia, Arrandale chips (i3/i5/i7) come in the following TDPs: 18W/25W/35W. These are 2 core chips. There are also quad core i5/i7 that have higher TDPs.
Don't try to mislead people.
very true. The core i5 processors are 35 W and the COre i7 are ... guess what, 35W!
Bunch of lies.
I haven't bothered to read your post, since you are obviously only trying to do defend Apple.
Apple claim on their Macbook Pro website that their machines are "Years ahead of its time.". And Steve has said "We will take them to the next level".
...Core 2 Duo, do I REALLY have to say anything more? What they offer is 'automatic graphics switching' on a crappy GPU, that seems to be American Rocket Sience
...and for a premium cost that is!
I think it's best we leave it at that.
Apple claim on their Macbook Pro website that their machines are "Years ahead of its time.". And Steve has said "We will take them to the next level".
...Core 2 Duo, do I REALLY have to say anything more? What they offer is 'automatic graphics switching' on a crappy GPU, that seems to be American Rocket Sience
...and for a premium cost that is!I think it's best we leave it at that.
Uh, actually the 18w and 25w chips are ultra mobile processors and have a significant performance penalty over the more power hungry versions. Also both the core i3 processors (which people are bitching over not being in the 13" model) are only 35w, that's probably pushing the boundaries for that particular design, especially with the need for a stand-alone GPU as well. Seem to have a point on the 45 / 55 w bit though. Ah, except no, you don't because you only linked to the Arrandale versions, it's the Clarksfield quad core processors that are 45 and 55 watts.
HOWEVER I really don't understand all this nonsense about 'lousy job on this update'. What were you expecting exactly? Apple make machines that balance ultimate power and speed against battery life and design. That means you don't get the same guts as, say, an Alienware laptop but you do get the ability to work away from a power socket for more than ten minutes at a time. That's been Apple's design philosophy for a while now and anyone expecting that to change is an idiot.
For that matter, what WERE people expecting that didn't get delivered today? I can see the case for Blu-Ray, at least as a BTO option, but Apple are fundamentaly limited by what parts are out there that'll fit into their designs. Anyone who looked at availability of parts yesterday could have had a pretty good guess as to what would have been in this upgrade as there's only a small number of components that would have made sense. Yeash.
Again, probably heat releated, my 17" MBP gets VERY toasty around that drive...
As for a MBP revolution... the year's not over yet. This was just a product refresh, they've got another 8 months until you can complain about that
Very good post, you just explained exactly my thoughts about the upgrade. I'm very happy Apple did it this way, and thus also agree with the e-mail Jobs has sent out into the world.
With OpenCL becoming more important for Macs, it'll be far more important to have a GPU that's up to 80% faster than have a CPU that's just up to 30% faster. Apple would have had to go with Intel HD graphics if they chose for Core i3's.
If you look at the 13" MBP's internals in comparison to other brands' 13" laptops, you'll notice that the MBP is mostly thinner, and that the battery takes up a lot more space = less room for a motherboard. Apple can't just put in a dedicated graphics solution in there. A GPU isn't the only thing that has to be added, it would also need some memory wouldn't it? Which would've also increased costs by a large amount.
Comparing a 13" MBP to a Sony Vaio Z-series is also stupid as you're comparing to a totally different price range.
Apple could've done the same, but you'd get a $2000+ 13" MBP with less battery life, because they have to make room for a bigger motherboard, and that's just not the Apple way of building notebooks.
And last-but-not-least. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Get lost with your sh***y Windows craptop, and don't come whine here when it crashes on you once a day, and when you can't even preview a PDF, PSD or PPT (MS format!) file without installing a handfull of extra apps first.
With OpenCL becoming more important for Macs, it'll be far more important to have a GPU that's up to 80% faster than have a CPU that's just up to 30% faster. Apple would have had to go with Intel HD graphics if they chose for Core i3's.
If you look at the 13" MBP's internals in comparison to other brands' 13" laptops, you'll notice that the MBP is mostly thinner, and that the battery takes up a lot more space = less room for a motherboard. Apple can't just put in a dedicated graphics solution in there. A GPU isn't the only thing that has to be added, it would also need some memory wouldn't it? Which would've also increased costs by a large amount.
Comparing a 13" MBP to a Sony Vaio Z-series is also stupid as you're comparing to a totally different price range.
Apple could've done the same, but you'd get a $2000+ 13" MBP with less battery life, because they have to make room for a bigger motherboard, and that's just not the Apple way of building notebooks.
And last-but-not-least. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Get lost with your sh***y Windows craptop, and don't come whine here when it crashes on you once a day, and when you can't even preview a PDF, PSD or PPT (MS format!) file without installing a handfull of extra apps first.
Please see smiddlehurst's post.
Additionally, highlighted are the chips being used in the 15 and 17 inch MBPs.
I haven't bothered to read your post, since you are obviously only trying to do defend Apple.
Apple claim on their Macbook Pro website that their machines are "Years ahead of its time.". And Steve has said "We will take them to the next level".
...Core 2 Duo, do I REALLY have to say anything more? What they offer is 'automatic graphics switching' on a crappy GPU, that seems to be American Rocket Sience
I think it's best we leave it at that.
I'm not defending Apple. I'm explaining there choices. If I owned my own laptop ( I don't), it wouldn't be an apple.
Please see smiddlehurst's post.
Additionally, highlighted are the chips being used in the 15 and 17 inch MBPs.
I'm not defending Apple. I'm explaining there choices. If I owned my own laptop ( I don't), it wouldn't be an apple.
OK, another question: why didn't Apple opt for the 25W i7, the LV version?
Denies? It's already in the app store.
The point was Apple didn't deny it because Amazon also has leverage on them.
Because the 25W i7 processor runs at a base of 1.067GHz to 1.2GHz; then it's would be horrifying, not only on paper, but in usage.
Sandy Bridge is expected then. I am guessing the unibody may see some kind of update if Apple chooses to include higher TDP CPUs and change the screen aspect ratios. However, I'd put the odds against it.
As always, buy when you need it. If your current computer doesn't meet your needs and the new one will, buy now.
How do we know that the 13inch design can't handle 35W chips just fine and the decision wasn't based on something else?
We don't. However, as I, and one other have pointed out, the amount of dissipating components in there coupled with the fact that Apple doesn't use 35W processors in the 13" notebooks makes it likely that it's either in-line with their trend of current business decisions, or it would actually break the thermal margin they're trying to maintain.
To find out, you'd have to have the skills to remove the chip and solder a 35W in (that's compatible with the chipset). That takes expensive tools and professional expertise.
We know that because we know that unibody aluminum cases are superb for heat dissipation and there plenty of other 13" laptops on the market with i3, i5 and even i7.
We know that because we know that unibody aluminum cases are superb for heat dissipation and there plenty of other 13" laptops on the market with i3, i5 and even i7.
So, there is another 0.95" thick 13" laptop with only a rear exhaust fan with a +35W processor and (at least) a 12W GPU?
I really need one for audio processing (ableton) and daily tasks (office, web and especially watching movies) and I am not quite sure if a i5 would not be a better choice for the audio processing (VST plugins let the CPU work quite intense. A Phenom II X4 is currently in use for that and I do not see it overly "overloaded" with this task.. so a c2d could be enough). The portability of the 13" would be great, but the screen resolution could be higher. 15" with high res. would be a good choice, but the case maybe too big. This is what I currently have to decide
What's the core utilization for the program? If it's using all 4 cores, you could benefit from the hyper-threading the i5's offer.
Great Post. I think I'm gonna get a 15". It will do what I need. Haters say what they want.
I don't need the "best" out there. It would be nice, but I'd rather have something that works well and is fast rather than something that is the fastest but crashes all the time.
I don't need the "best" out there. It would be nice, but I'd rather have something that works well and is fast rather than something that is the fastest but crashes all the time.