Why wait for Sandy Bridge? It's just going to be another dual core chip

[puma1552]

I don't think anyone is talking about waiting for a "miracle". Anyway, Anand also stated: "Mobile Sandy Bridge is significantly faster than Arrandale/Clarksfield".

This is what I don't understand about this forum. Go in any thread about i5 vs. i7--ANY thread, and you hear the same old thing--"it's only a 10% difference, get the i5, you won't use/notice/see the extra 10% of the i7 anyway," or, "why wait for the next speedbump? It's just a little difference, nobody will notice anyway."

Yet, then everyone comes in and says "Hot damn we gotta wait for all these new chips because they will be so much faster!!"

I don't get it.

 

[Hellhammer]

This is what I don't understand about this forum. Go in any thread about i5 vs. i7--ANY thread, and you hear the same old thing--"it's only a 10% difference, get the i5, you won't use/notice/see the extra 10% of the i7 anyway," or, "why wait for the next speedbump? It's just a little difference, nobody will notice anyway."

Yet, then everyone comes in and says "Hot damn we gotta wait for all these new chips because they will be so much faster!!"

I don't get it.

This time, it's not only about CPUs. SATA 6Gb/s and especially USB 3.0 will be significant. You have to remember that some people already have fully working computers and thus are not in immediate need of a new computer. That's why they can wait for something that will be more or less significantly better than their current computer is.

FYI, I'm one of those. I have an early 2009 iMac that has served me well but my aging Acer isn't serving me very well anymore. I still don't NEED a new one right now so I'm waiting and seeing what's coming. If I needed one, I would go and buy one at this particular second.

 

[deus ex machina]

This is what I don't understand about this forum. Go in any thread about i5 vs. i7--ANY thread, and you hear the same old thing--"it's only a 10% difference, get the i5, you won't use/notice/see the extra 10% of the i7 anyway," or, "why wait for the next speedbump? It's just a little difference, nobody will notice anyway."

Yet, then everyone comes in and says "Hot damn we gotta wait for all these new chips because they will be so much faster!!"

I don't get it.

This is a forum, a mixture of fact and opinion. I agree that it is silly to wait 6 months to purchase a computer (especially if you do not have one or considering a change to a Mac).

This time, it's not only about CPUs. SATA 6Gb/s and especially USB 3.0 will be significant. You have to remember that some people already have fully working computers and thus are not in immediate need of a new computer. That's why they can wait for something that will be more or less significantly better than their current computer is.

FYI, I'm one of those. I have an early 2009 iMac that has served me well but my aging Acer isn't serving me very well anymore. I still don't NEED a new one right now so I'm waiting and seeing what's coming. If I needed one, I would go and buy one at this particular second.

well put.

 

[wordoflife]

This is what I don't understand about this forum. Go in any thread about i5 vs. i7--ANY thread, and you hear the same old thing--"it's only a 10% difference, get the i5, you won't use/notice/see the extra 10% of the i7 anyway," or, "why wait for the next speedbump? It's just a little difference, nobody will notice anyway."

Yet, then everyone comes in and says "Hot damn we gotta wait for all these new chips because they will be so much faster!!"

I don't get it.

Everyone is subject to their own opinions. Its not the same person who is contradicting themselves like you mentioned above. One person says its only a 10% difference, but the other says they want a new chip.

 

[apolloa]

This time, it's not only about CPUs. SATA 6Gb/s and especially USB 3.0 will be significant. You have to remember that some people already have fully working computers and thus are not in immediate need of a new computer. That's why they can wait for something that will be more or less significantly better than their current computer is.

FYI, I'm one of those. I have an early 2009 iMac that has served me well but my aging Acer isn't serving me very well anymore. I still don't NEED a new one right now so I'm waiting and seeing what's coming. If I needed one, I would go and buy one at this particular second.

I didn't NEED a new computer, but I swapped my first gen unibody for the i7, because I don't need any of the other things, SATA 6gb I can resolve by getting an SSD if I want and USB 3 is just a speed thing, and I don't use or need external drives, I just sync my iPhone.
What I did want was the automatic graphics switching and the automatic CPU throttling hence the swap. The hi-res screen was a bonus too

Just wanted to expand and backup your point. If you can wait then wait, if you don't need all the fancy new tech then buy now. It use to be a fact you always brought the best you could or just when the technology was launched.
IMO that is no longer a case anymore, computers are so powerful today that they will pretty much do anything you want.
Case in pont is the iPhone 4, yes it's not a computer, but it's not a games console either yet look at it's games, look at what's being released, it can run Unreal Engine 3!!
It's like the quad core argument, why? Why do you HAVE to have 4 cores? Is it to brag about? or so you can rip your DVD's that lil bit faster if you can find a programme to use 4 cores in the first place.

 

[Inconsequential]

I think most people are missing the point.

It's a performance boost WITH a reduction in power, so assuming a few variables I recon the new SB MBPs will be able to do 10 hours instead of 8-9 or 11 hours for the same performance, etc. Abit exaggerated but thats the idea.

I personally won't be getting one as I've just bought a Core i5 for 35% off new so Im happy

 

[grahamnp]

I'd like to keep my computer for 3+ years so if I have to wait 6 months for a computer that will serve me better in those 3 years, it's an exceptable compromise if my current one isn't in immediate need of replacement.

 

[milan03]

I'd like to keep my computer for 3+ years so if I have to wait 6 months for a computer that will serve me better in those 3 years, it's an exceptable compromise if my current one isn't in immediate need of replacement.

=
And then there will be another 6 months wait because the new model didn't have USB 3, SATA 6.0, and another, and there goes your 3+ of waiting.

 

[DJ-R]

USB 3, next year to come or early 2012.

Core i7 2.66Ghz is perfectly fine. Those extra Mhz on the coming up one just for less patient people... just kidding. Well technology improves. But it is just minor differences.

It's not like jumping a Core i7 + 4 threads to a 8 treads Core i7 2.8Ghz.

Just speed differences, speed bump.

If I am not mistaken. Core i5 is only 2 threads no hyperthreading.

 

[Frosties]

If I am not mistaken. Core i5 is only 2 threads no hyperthreading.

You are mistaken. (couldn't help myself)

 

[RedTomato]

I remember the days when computers became around 50% faster each year.

Now my 3-year old 2.2GHZ MB is still perfectly fast compared to modern MBs. 4GB RAM and a fast 500GB HD help a lot, but I got these pretty soon after buying it. (and I can always put a SSD in later)

I actually need more RAM and more cores for running my virtual machines, but not enough to justify buying a MBP just to get access to 8GB RAM.

I have the motto that I upgrade whenever I can get something that's twice as powerful for the same price or less as I originally bought my current computer. (To me, that means a 4-core MB with the ability to run 8GB of RAM.)

My current MB is over 2x the power of my old Powerbook, which was twice the power of my old P2 ThinkPad, which was twice the power of my old AMD Athlon 700 MHZ desktop...

Looks like I'm going to be keeping this MB a while longer as I don't see anything twice the power at the same price coming any time soon.

All the action now is in mobile phones, where we're seeing a rerun of the giddy days of 50% leaps per year in power. Look at the iPhone 3G / 3GS / 4 progression... I don't know much about the Android devices but the same thing seems to be happening there.

 

[robertbrian23]

for me, i think i'll wait for the next model to be released. i've been a pc user was back. got the P3 500Mhz doing overclocks etc just to make it longer, then bought an AMD 2.2MHz single core i think then then last year i've bought an HP mini atom. so i'll wait for the next big thing then.

i more into iMac or MBP. if i have add'l savings lets see if i can buy the next MBP then iMac by next year June-Sept release.

 

[CrackedButter]

The most difficult thing about waiting is knowing how to get value for money.

I could buy a base level 13MBP today but after 3 years since my last Apple laptop purchase, 0.4Ghz in processor speed doesn't seem at all appealing. I'm waiting for the next refresh and it could take 6 more months, I can justify that wait can't I with my anecdotal story?

Intel Core Duo 2, 2Ghz >>> 2.4Ghz
3GB RAM >>> 4GB RAM
500GB HD >>> 250GB HD (yes I know I can swap the old HD for the new HD)

 

[Transporteur]

I didn't NEED a new computer, but I swapped my first gen unibody for the i7, because I don't need any of the other things, SATA 6gb I can resolve by getting an SSD...

Do you even know what 6Gb/s SATA means? You can't solve the problem of the limited bandwidth of 3Gb/s SATA with a SSD. That doesn't make the bus any faster!

It's like the quad core argument, why? Why do you HAVE to have 4 cores? Is it to brag about? or so you can rip your DVD's that lil bit faster if you can find a programme to use 4 cores in the first place.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense.
Believe it or not, but some people need to work with their computers, and this might be a surprise for you, some people actually need more than 2 cores because their usage behaviour requires it!
Why do you think do we have 12 core Mac Pros?
And just FYI, there are actually quite a lot applications that can handle 4 threads very well!

 

[wywern209]

The most difficult thing about waiting is knowing how to get value for money.

I could buy a base level 13MBP today but after 3 years since my last Apple laptop purchase, 0.4Ghz in processor speed doesn't seem at all appealing. I'm waiting for the next refresh and it could take 6 more months, I can justify that wait can't I with my anecdotal story?

Intel Core Duo 2 2Ghz >>> 2.4Ghz
3GB RAM >>> 4GB RAM
500GB HD >>> 250GB HD (yes I know I can swap the old HD for the new HD)

it isn't just a .2 jump in ghz. it is also an upgrade in the FSB speeds as well as support for ddr3 ram. and the gfx is much faster than your current macbook. The myth that more ghz means better used to hold true but that is no longer true.

 

[Hellhammer]

The most difficult thing about waiting is knowing how to get value for money.

I could buy a base level 13MBP today but after 3 years since my last Apple laptop purchase, 0.4Ghz in processor speed doesn't seem at all appealing. I'm waiting for the next refresh and it could take 6 more months, I can justify that wait can't I with my anecdotal story?

Intel Core Duo 2 2Ghz >>> 2.4Ghz
3GB RAM >>> 4GB RAM
500GB HD >>> 250GB HD (yes I know I can swap the old HD for the new HD)

RAM speed: 667MHz DDR2 -> 1066MHz DDR3
Max RAM: 3GB -> 8GB
GPU: Intel GMA 950 64MB -> NVIDIA 320M 256MB
Display backlight: CCFL (not 100% sure) -> LED
HD interface: SATA 1.5Gb/s -> SATA 3Gb/s
Video output: Mini-DVI with 1920x1200 max -> Mini DisplayPort with 2560x1600 max + carries audio
Optical drive: Combo Drive -> SuperDrive
Battery: Up to 6 hours (3.5 with WiFi) -> Up to 10 hours
FireWire: 400Mb/s -> 800Mb/s
Trackpad: Normal trackpad -> Multitouch trackpad

Assuming you have this MacBook. Just few differences I noticed. If your current one does its job well, then I can't see why you should upgrade.

 

[CrackedButter]

RAM speed: 667MHz DDR2 -> 1066MHz DDR3
Max RAM: 3GB -> 8GB
GPU: Intel GMA 950 64MB -> NVIDIA 320M 256MB
Display backlight: CCFL (not 100% sure) -> LED
HD interface: SATA 1.5Gb/s -> SATA 3Gb/s
Video output: Mini-DVI with 1920x1200 max -> Mini DisplayPort with 2560x1600 max + carries audio
Optical drive: Combo Drive -> SuperDrive
Battery: Up to 6 hours (3.5 with WiFi) -> Up to 10 hours
FireWire: 400Mb/s -> 800Mb/s
Trackpad: Normal trackpad -> Multitouch trackpad

Assuming you have this MacBook. Just few differences I noticed. If your current one does its job well, then I can't see why you should upgrade.

That is my laptop Sir.

I'd really like to see some benchmarks though. My machine suffers through heavy Aperture use probably because of that 3GB RAM ceiling. I compared it to the base machine because I don't have the money to afford extra RAM and what not (yet) that's why I didn't list the potential of that machine. The bells and whistles are nice but I only care for processor speed within a laptop machine (I can't buy a desktop).

Wouldn't you think my point still stands, after 3 years we're still only talking about an incremental speed increase?

 

[Hellhammer]

Wouldn't you think my point still stands, after 3 years we're still only talking about an incremental speed increase?

In CPU power, definitely, it's only 400MHz (20%) bump. I would wait for Sandy Bridge and then upgrade. SB is said to be ~20% faster (clock for clock I think) than Nehalem/Westmere which is significantly faster than Core architecture. You could be looking at more than twice as fast system (2GHz C2D -> Sandy Bridge) if you wait little longer plus SATA 6Gb/s and USB 3.0 (possibly).

 

[RedTomato]

That is my laptop Sir.

I nearly brought that model, but it was just a little bit too crippled for my taste. The next model, 2.2GHZ c2d, I bought the same month it came out, with the benefit of being able to use a full 4GB RAM, dvd burner included, and GMA X3100 not GMA 950 graphics.

Hmm. If I had yours, upgrading would certainly be a lot more attractive, but I'd still be wary.

I'd really like to see some benchmarks though. My machine suffers through heavy Aperture use probably because of that 3GB RAM ceiling. ... t I only care for processor speed within a laptop machine

So, Aperture is the only app that you regularly use that strains your machine. You need to identify the bottleneck in your machine. Is it the GMA 950 graphics card? Is it the lack of RAM? Is it the processor speed?

First you say it's the RAM then you say you only care for CPU speed. Which is it I think it may well be the graphics card too as Aperture also uses the GPU (or tries to)

You'll get most bang for your buck by looking into how to speed up Aperture on your current macbook.

Check out the threads here

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=aperture+bottleneck
general info

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=aperture+macbook+bottleneck
macbook specific info.

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2343039
Indepth discussion of Aperture slowdown issues

It could be as simple as changing your Aperture folder system, or running a defrag utility, or reformatting your HD and reinstalling fresh.

 

[DJ-R]

In CPU power, definitely, it's only 400MHz (20%) bump. I would wait for Sandy Bridge and then upgrade. SB is said to be ~20% faster (clock for clock I think) than Nehalem/Westmere which is significantly faster than Core architecture. You could be looking at more than twice as fast system (2GHz C2D -> Sandy Bridge) if you wait little longer plus SATA 6Gb/s and USB 3.0 (possibly).

GAAAHH ANOTHER ONE SAYING ABOUT USB3.

It comes in late 2011 or early 2012.. I hate these people flooding with USB3 updates this year.

 

[lilcosco08]

I'm waiting because the core 2 duos are being EOL'd anyways + I need the hyperthreading for video/photo editing

 

[CaoCao]

GAAAHH ANOTHER ONE SAYING ABOUT USB3.

It comes in late 2011 or early 2012.. I hate these people flooding with USB3 updates this year.

LP comes then, USB3 actually comes this year with SB (6k series chipset)

 

[LarryC]

I'll tell you why I wait, not that you asked, or actually you did.

I wait with my 2007 MBP because I love it, each new MBP that is released I am tempted to upgrade but then I find that my MBP does everything I need. It may not be the fastest anymore but it's still quite the performer. especially when I compare it to other almost 4 year old windows laptops.

I have the money already saved up and would love to upgrade but I have so far refrained from doing so. By now I'm no longer waiting on a new processor, since I find this to be overrated for most of us. I wait on an upgraded iSight, updated interfaces (USB 3.0 maybe, FW 1600), some new amazing displays...
The point being, I wait for SB because I have the hope that apple will introduce some game changer to its lineup, processor technologies are stagnant because of intel dominance of the market, so hopefully something else will blow us away by next release. You are, of course, welcome to disagree.

Your post makes a huge amount of sense to me. Sensible and down to earth common-sense. Which unfortunately isn't too common.

 

[DVD9]

GAAAHH ANOTHER ONE SAYING ABOUT USB3.

It comes in late 2011 or early 2012.. I hate these people flooding with USB3 updates this year.

Then why is USB 3.0 on the just released ENVY 17"?

Why is USB 3.0 on the Sony F series refresh?

Why are USB 3.0 external drives for sale with many more arriving in the next six weeks?
--

 

[CrackedButter]

I nearly brought that model, but it was just a little bit too crippled for my taste. The next model, 2.2GHZ c2d, I bought the same month it came out, with the benefit of being able to use a full 4GB RAM, dvd burner included, and GMA X3100 not GMA 950 graphics.

As the saying goes, if you need to buy a new machine then do it right away. I just didn't realise at the time.

Hmm. If I had yours, upgrading would certainly be a lot more attractive, but I'd still be wary.

Wary of buying from the current laptop lineup you mean?

So, Aperture is the only app that you regularly use that strains your machine. You need to identify the bottleneck in your machine. Is it the GMA 950 graphics card? Is it the lack of RAM? Is it the processor speed?

You're sort of right. The issue of RAM and the Graphics card is well taken care of in the newer machines. I know eventually I could put 8GB in a laptop which is amazing, but I'm concerned about processing speed because it's barely budged in those 3 years. When it comes to crunching raw files I want to know I am getting a decent improvement.

First you say it's the RAM then you say you only care for CPU speed. Which is it I think it may well be the graphics card too as Aperture also uses the GPU (or tries to)

You'll get most bang for your buck by looking into how to speed up Aperture on your current macbook.

Check out the threads here

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=aperture+bottleneck
general info

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=aperture+macbook+bottleneck
macbook specific info.

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2343039
Indepth discussion of Aperture slowdown issues

It could be as simple as changing your Aperture folder system, or running a defrag utility, or reformatting your HD and reinstalling fresh.

I already know about improving Aperture's performance, those are good links. I'm waiting for a job to finish and I already have a plan to start afresh my system. But I do think purchasing new hardware is the way to go and this software solution is only a short term fix.