Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why didn't Apple use the 3.06ghz C2D in the 2010 13" MBP?

D

danistyping

macrumors regular
Original poster
Dec 8, 2009
183
171
Boston, MA
I just don't get it....they could easily have put in the 3.06ghz Core 2 Duo and kept the two price points (especially the obnoxiously overpriced 2.66ghz pricepoint...) or perhaps a 2.8 and a 3.06, respectively. It would also line up with their low end iMacs and provide realistic modern performance for a notebook over a thousand bucks.

Are we being scammed, or are there realistic heat/cost issues associated with this decision?
 
danistyping said:
I just don't get it....they could easily have put in the 3.06ghz Core 2 Duo and kept the two price points (especially the obnoxiously overpriced 2.66ghz pricepoint...) or perhaps a 2.8 and a 3.06, respectively. It would also line up with their low end iMacs and provide realistic modern performance for a notebook over a thousand bucks.

Are we being scammed, or are there realistic heat/cost issues associated with this decision?
Click to expand...

The reason should be obvious. It is because the i7 is only 2.66 Ghz without Turbo Boost, and Apple could not have the 13" MacBook Pro with a faster clock speed than the flagship 15" and 17" notebooks regardless of actual performance. Then, since the MBP 13" were using the P8400 and P8700 in the mid 2009 models, if the 13" were to get a processor upgrade the P8600 (2.4GHz with 3MB cache) and P8800 (2.66GHz with 3MB cache) would be the next faster processors, respectively.

Also I am sure Apple wanted to keep the 13" models using only 25W CPUs. This means that the 3.06GHz T9900 is not an option, but the P9500 (2.53GHz with 6MB cache), the P9600 (2.66GHz with 6MB cache), and P9700 (2.8GHZ with 6MB cache and 28W) could be options. I am sure they did not use these CPUs because of costs and the issue I first discussed.
 
vant said:
Exactly.

The 3.06 uses 35W. With wattage, the main concern is heat and battery life. Second is price, which I presume would be 50%-100% more than the 2.4.
Click to expand...

I think that price probably was more of a concern because Apple did not use the P9600 but instead used the P8800 in the upgraded 13" MBP.
 
kny3twalker said:
I think that price probably was more of a concern because Apple did not use the P9600 but instead used the P8800 in the upgraded 13" MBP.
Click to expand...

This is a guess, but I think the P9600 was incompatible because MBPs use socket BGA478.
 
vant said:
This is a guess, but I think the P9600 was incompatible because MBPs use socket BGA478.
Click to expand...

The P8800 and P9600 processors are the same chip (meaning both are compatible); Intel simply unlocked all the cache on the P9600. At release though, there was more than a $100 price difference between the two CPUs.
 
kny3twalker said:
The reason should be obvious.
Click to expand...

This is a forum, no? Some people don't know the answer, some people do. If you don't know, you ask. If you know, you answer. No need for your condescending attitude.

Thanks to everyone for the responses, it makes much more sense to me now.
 
danistyping said:
This is a forum, no? Some people don't know the answer, some people do. If you don't know, you ask. If you know, you answer. No need for your condescending attitude.

Thanks to everyone for the responses, it makes much more sense to me now.
Click to expand...

I was trying to use sarcasm, but I forget this is internet.
The sarcasm was because Apple could not have a 13" notebook will a faster clock speed than the larger 15" and 17". While this is good for marketing, it more than likely was not the engineering or accounting reason.

Anyways, try not to take everything as a personal attack. It was not my intention.
 
I agree with the clockspeed. Even one user got confused. They said they took the 2.8GHz and gave their wife the 3.06GHz. These were 27 inch iMacs, and the 2.8GHz Core i& is faster than the 3.06GHz core 2 duo. So people might say that the 13 inch is more powerful than the 15 and 17 inch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back