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

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by danistyping, May 7, 2010.

  1. danistyping macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #1
    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?
     
  2. mikeo007 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #2
    My guess would be either lack of supply or worse profit margins.
     
  3. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
  4. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #4
  5. kny3twalker macrumors 65816

    kny3twalker

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    #5
    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.
     
  6. kny3twalker macrumors 65816

    kny3twalker

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    #6
    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.
     
  7. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #7
    This is a guess, but I think the P9600 was incompatible because MBPs use socket BGA478.
     
  8. kny3twalker macrumors 65816

    kny3twalker

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    #8
    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.
     
  9. danistyping thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #9
    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.
     
  10. kny3twalker macrumors 65816

    kny3twalker

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    #10
    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.
     
  11. ouimetnick macrumors 68020

    ouimetnick

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Location:
    Beverly, Massachusetts
    #11
    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
     

Share This Page