We can blame one party for the crippled 13" MBP: Intel.

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Dwalls90, Apr 19, 2010.

  1. Dwalls90 macrumors 601

    Dwalls90

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    #1
    Intel preventing Apple from licensing alternative integrated GPU's (i.e. 320M) in combination with the Arrandale CPU's is why we now have a C2D instead of an i3/i5 in the 13" MBP. Doesn't this infuriate anyone? I'm shocked that Apple didn't give Intel a 'kind' kick-in-the-pants. Hopefully these rumors of Apple meeting with AMD will threaten Intel. Hopefully Intel will be less likely to be such a cry-baby with their licensing and Apple doesn't give Intel priority with future products. I understand that i3 counterparts are marginally faster than C2D, but i5 blows C2D out of the water ... and we would have still seen battery life on par, if not still better, than the 15"/17" MBP's.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. rmbrown09 macrumors 6502a

    rmbrown09

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    #2
    I think the world will explode before Apple goes to AMD

    [​IMG]
     
  3. fuzzielitlpanda macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    #3
    I wouldn't say the 13" MBP is crippled. It's a lot better than the previous 13" MBP, which is all that really matters to me. Although I would have liked to see an i3 in there (just because it's the newest technology), I don't think performance would have been any different. If Intel put an i5 in there, price would have likely jumped by quite a bit. Looking at all the trade offs, I think Apple did the right thing. I'm sure they have a whole team over there who were contemplating the same thing we are now.
     
  4. Dwalls90 thread starter macrumors 601

    Dwalls90

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    #4
    The Mhz increase of the CPU is almost negligble, the battery life is increased, true. The HDD arrangement isn't any different, nor is the RAM (the lower end 13" MBP should have had 4Gb standard all along, RAM is cheap). The GPU IS improved, but really - that's it. You're telling me after 1 year, the only improvement is an extra hour of battery life and a GPU that's 1.5-2x betteR?
     
  5. fuzzielitlpanda macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    #5
    -The battery life on the previous 13" MBP was 7 hours advertised. Now, it is up to 10 hours. 3 hours is a BIG difference.
    -Having 4GB standard on low end is great (saved myself $50)
    -mini-DVI now supports video AND audio, so people can hook their laptop up to their HDTVs
    -GPU improvements as you mentioned

    All this for the same price? I think it is a big improvement.
     
  6. Groat macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    #6
    It's gone up £99 here. :(
     
  7. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #7
    Seeing the performance per watt of AMD processors are a bit less in comparison to Intel processors, you'd have crappier computers, but maybe at a lower price. But business is very good for Apple at this time, so I don't see why they would lower their prices any more than they already have. We know they won't be making a netbook, or if they do it will be with ARM processors.
     
  8. macgeek18 macrumors 68000

    macgeek18

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Location:
    Northern California
    #8
    I was really hoping for the i3 in the 13" MBP,but I really hope Apple doesn't go to AMD anytime soon,I still think Intel is way better than AMD.
     
  9. lilo777 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #9
    I have a thought. Why it is Intel's fault that Apple can not design a decent notebook? Intel preventing NVIDIA from licensing alternative integrated GPU? That's just nonsense perpetuated on Apple forums. All Arrandale chips have IGP in the package. It's impossible to separate it from CPU. So if NVIDIA does get a license, would Apple go for a laptop with two IGPs? Obviously not. IGP being what it is (a low performance option) it does not really matter which IGP is used. Intel's IGP is good enough for most tasks and this is all that is required from IGP. More challenging tasks will require discrete graphics anyway. Apple being a relatively small Intel customer obviously is not in a position to dictate anything to Intel. Do you really expect Intel do design chips to please Apple?
     
  10. ReallyBigFeet macrumors 68030

    ReallyBigFeet

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #10
    OMG the 2010 13" isn't "crippled." Maybe it didn't get the refresh we were all hoping for (and I think it deserved) but its far from crippled. Crippled would infer the thing has only half a screen or something.
     
  11. lilo777 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #11
    Well, i does have only half the GPU and CPU compared to some competitors (like Sony VAIO Z) ;)
     
  12. ermir4444 macrumors regular

    ermir4444

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto On
    #12
    because you have it for half the price + better design + OSX in 0.95" package.
    Thats why the vaio z wont ever sell nearly as good as the base 13".
     
  13. Dwalls90 thread starter macrumors 601

    Dwalls90

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    #13
    Intel shouldn't design chips for Apple, but they shouldn't design chips that inherently prevent laptop designs from being created ...
     
  14. mikeo007 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #14
    Just wanted to say it's refreshing to see some clear thinking in these 13" MBP topics. Sure Intel are being dicks by not allowing others to create chipsets for the Arrandale family, but Apple is 100% to blame for not finding a workable solution for their notebook computers. Instead of putting some money into R&D, the just slapped together something quick to try and save face, making it look like a big upgrade from the previous generation.

    Not saying the 13" is a bad machine, but it could have used Arrandale if Apple actually put some time and money into it. Unfortunately, their too dedicated to the handheld devices right now...hell, we won't even see OSX 10.7 for at least another year due to their shifting priorities!
     
  15. nuckinfutz macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
  16. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #16
    How could we have used i3? If we did, we'd have to either get stuck with Intel's IGP which is worse then the previous 9400M. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR A DISCREET GPU! 15/17" both have dual fans, dual heat sinks. There is no laptop in the world that is 13" and 1" thick with a discreet GPU.

    Apple can put all the time and money in the world, and in the end they would end up with the same thing. The only options are to reduce battery size/remove superdrive/increase overall size (thickness).
     
  17. mikeo007 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #17
    Your reading comprehension is impeccable. Seriously though, read what I wrote again. More R&D could have found a solution. Reorganize their existing mainboard maybe? Thickness has nothing to do with it, the GPU chip isn't 1 inch tall, get a grip man.
     
  18. lilo777 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    #18
    How about Apple designs two versions of 13" laptop? One for students (with 10h battery life) and one for professionals (with real CPU and real graphics). That's what others companies offer.
     
  19. nuckinfutz macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #19
    Woulda coulda shoulda

    Sorry looks at the pics of the mainboard. There is no space!
     
  20. nuckinfutz macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #20
    Because Pro's generally want larger than a 13" monitor
     
  21. Readover macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    #21
    Doesn't Intel own ATI? Why couldn't there have been some kind of ATI-graphics allowed by Intel? They'd still made money, right?
     
  22. mikeo007 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #22
    AMD owns ATI
     
  23. Readover macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    #23

    Oh, right... I 'Meant' Nvidia.. Why the Intel HD graphics? I dont get it...
     
  24. PAC88 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    #24
    yea.. intel doesn't own nvidia either..

    it's just a matter of time before apple switches to AMD.. when they do, it will be an exciting time that's for sure.

    all you people that are worried about losing performane.. you won't. AMD will be able to adapt to apple's standards..
     
  25. tkingart macrumors 6502

    tkingart

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Location:
    West Coast
    #25
    The fact that apple bought a microprocessor company so they could control the design of the A4 for the iPad, makes one wonder if Apple might consider purchasing AMD, to have complete control over their systems. Put Apple behind AMD/ATI, with their current A4 and design team, and maybe they can take AMD's to the next step.

    I really do not know enough about these things to make any sort of assessment of whether or not such a thing is even feasible or possible, but I'm guessing Apple would love full control over the insides of all their systems.
     

Share This Page