Will Apple ever release a 13' MacBook Pro 3.0ghz or higher?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by MugenRacing, Jun 28, 2009.

  1. MugenRacing macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    #1
    I am currently waiting for the MacBook Pro 13' series to obtain 3.0ghz or higher. I do not want to settle for the 2.53ghz processor that they have currently in their model. I was hoping that they would build a 3.0ghz Quad Core processor such as the QX9600 or better. I would really like to see a 3ghz + Quad core processor and have the ability to last 7-8 hours or more. :D

    Please reply and give me an insight if this will be possible any time soon. I am hoping if they do not reach quad core yet, I will wait for the 3ghz core 2 duo, but really anticipating the quad core..
     
  2. DeusInvictus7 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Location:
    Kitchener, Ontario
    #2
    What exactly are you doing that you absolutely need 3GHz? Or are you just one of those people that want a top spec machine "just cuz"?
     
  3. MugenRacing thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    #3
    I will be doing webpage design, programming, photo editing, audio compression,etc. Basically I will be multi-tasking and I do not want a computer that cant keep up to speed. I currently have a desktop that is in need of updating.
     
  4. munkees macrumors 65816

    munkees

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    #4
    it a notebook, made for being portable, I doubt it will get some power hungry processor, seeing it made for on the road type of use. Where power tends to be in the Mac Pro, and live of a wall socket.

    What limits notebooks really is the power drain, there might be high end PC notebooks, but they have really poor battery life. The extra speed even though useful, is not that much quicker overall, on the day to day uses, would suggest more memory if you want better performance. Most Laptops also use slower drives for the same reasons. The 2.53 for what you want will do all what you ask and then some, just add more memory, that way programs don't need to swap to virtual memory as much, making the system much quicker.
     
  5. DeusInvictus7 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Location:
    Kitchener, Ontario
    #5
    Hmm, I do all the same things...and my 2.4GHz Macbook is perfect for the job. Honestly, RAM is what you are looking for, not pure CPU power for multitasking.

    Well back to your original question, I doubt it will ever happen, considering the heat and that the 13" only has 1 fan.
     
  6. michael.lauden macrumors 68020

    michael.lauden

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2008
    #6
    give it two years and check back. either it will be a quad core, or it will have a faster clock speed
     
  7. rick3000 macrumors 6502a

    rick3000

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Location:
    West Coast
    #7
    Get a 15" or deal with the smaller processor. The 13" will eventually achieve 3GHz+ but not anytime soon. Also, multitasking has more to do with RAM than the processor, so just get 8GB of RAM.
     
  8. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #8
    There's nothing really preventing Apple from doing it.

    Not that they ever will. All the more reason to upsell to a more expensive model like many other hardware manufacturers.
     
  9. HLdan macrumors 603

    HLdan

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    #9
    Yeah, I think the OP doesn't understand computers very well. For his needs it's the amount ram and HDD/SSD transfer rates that he should be more focused on, not raw CPU speed. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 2.53Ghz processor in the 13" in terms of raw processing power.
     
  10. MWPULSE macrumors 6502a

    MWPULSE

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #10
    I can do all the things you talk of on 2.4, 2GB RAM (Sept 08 model) without any problems. I personally dont think i will need to upgrade this machine for at least another year, and i will still be using it for multi track protools sessions and photoshop. So i wouldnt sweat it with the speed of the machines at the mo. Especially seeing as the FSB speed is faster now, than in the previous models. :)
     
  11. MugenRacing thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    #11
    I understand. I would really appreciated it if they just threw in a 3ghz processor dual core or quad, settling at the peak of 3.0ghz is enough for me. I would definitely get 8gb of RAM for my next MBP, but RICK3000, in your signature, you wrote Shipping soon MBP 3.06ghz? Is that coming out soon? I may wait until the end of this year to get the new MBP if its going to be 3.0ghz+ :p
     
  12. MugenRacing thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    #12
    Another thing for me, I hate this about myself, but ever since they had Pentium 4 and Dual Core processors, I have always aimed to get at least 3.0ghz+, I guess it was because my first computer was the 3.0ghz P4 that I purchase myself. So in my mind, I would be looking for a faster 3.0ghz computer. I am hoping to get a MBP 13' 3.0ghz when they start having them available.
     
  13. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #13
    Easier to pull off on a desktop and with NetBurst than on a mobile Core 2.

    In before everyone else's mentions of IPC, definitions clock speed, and core scaling.
     
  14. CaptainChunk macrumors 68020

    CaptainChunk

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #14
    So, you want a computer that can keep up with heavy multitasking and such, but you've limited your choice to a 13" MBP? That doesn't make a lot of sense. The 13" MBP is designed to be super-portable while being reasonably powerful, which it is, but it has its limits. Is 2.53GHz not enough for a small laptop?

    If Apple wanted to put a Core 2 Quad in a laptop, they would have done it already. I don't expect to see quad-core anything in an Apple laptop until the mobile Nehalem cores ship. And even then, I doubt they'd be slapping those chips into 13" MBPs right away. If I were to guess, they'd go into high-end 15" and 17" models first. Plus, with the current battery technology, you can kiss 7-8 hour battery life goodbye with a quad-core.
     
  15. MugenRacing thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    #15
    I found it on Apple.com for the 15' MBP that has a option for 3.06ghz processor which is great! but I am looking for something smaller like a 13'. I will have awhile until this is available, if not, ill settle for the 15' with the 3.06ghz cpu. I am sure of it though that the time I settle to purchase a new MBP, either they will have what I am looking for, or the price will slash or newer faster CPU will be available. Most likely the 13' will have 2.6 or 2.8 like the 15 MBP later in the years. Maybe next year they will have 3.06ghz MBP 13'

    Seeing how the design goes for mac, maybe this will come true.
     
  16. munkees macrumors 65816

    munkees

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    #16
    the 15" and 17" have the option to to upgrade from 2.8 to 3.06.

    I can see in the future more cores, not so much clock speed, and with snow leopards being designed for multi-core and to use them more efficiently. slow speeds = less heat and power, so adding more cores to speed it up seems to be the way to go. quad cores will come, just a matter of time, I can see the iMac going quad next release, and pro going 16 cores chips.

    Snow leopard grand central will allow all developers to build multi-core applications, this is big.
     
  17. MugenRacing thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    #17
    True about multi-tasking, but I am looking for portability. If anything I will settle for the 15' MBP. I had a 17' MBP and it was really a problem for traveling.
     
  18. MugenRacing thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    #18
    That sounds good. I cant wait for the release of Snow Leopard. When is the release date? I am sure if I wait till then, they should have new processors out. :D Hopefully with 3.06ghz and 7-8 hours battery life WOULD be AWESOME. From what other users say, it wouldnt be likely anytime soon, I am guessing apple wants their laptops to have at least 7hours and with a higher cpu, it would definitely drain the battery from their specifications..
     
  19. CaptainChunk macrumors 68020

    CaptainChunk

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #19
    Are you really that fixated on having a 3GHz processor? Core 2 processors are significantly faster than P4 core processors of the past, even at lower clock speeds. These days, architecture (as in more efficient use of clock cycles) is king.

    Using this logic, by the time a 3.06GHz (or whatever) 13" MBP ships, the 15/17" models will have 3.4GHz processors you'll undoubtedly want on the 13" MBP. Buy a computer that suits your current needs and be done with it. If you're willing to wait several months for the MBP line to refresh again, you obviously don't need a new computer that bad.
     
  20. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
  21. Some Guy 555 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #21
    For what you mentioned, you could easily do with 2.0ghz core 2 duo as long as it has at least a 3 mb L2 cache.

    If you really want the best performance get a SSD.

    I got one for testing and put it on my 9 year old desktop (intel P4 1.5ghz, 256mb ram, 64mb graphics card...) and it out performs ANYTHING to date as long as it doesn't have a SSD of course :D

    Why spend 300-500 bucks on a better processor when you can have a ssd that would beat a $2000 processor upgrade.

    Its like... why put a 3000HP engine (drag) into a civic when you don't need it...
     
  22. MugenRacing thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    #22
    Wow, that really is true, when the 13' MBP reaches 3.06ghz, the 15' and 17' MBP line will be at 3.4ghz and higher.. And when that happens, my thirst for computing power will drive me to get the higher processor speed again.. Im pretty sure that I will crave for a 4ghz cpu if that happens.. LOL. :D

    I guess I'll get the 15' MBP 3.06ghz. Hmmm... will the price drop anytime soon? Its $2,599 w/o tax or shipping.. OUCH :eek:
     
  23. CaptainChunk macrumors 68020

    CaptainChunk

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #23
    And for the record, the two machines in my signature get used frequently for pro-level work (video editing, compositing, rendering). While they're not quite the bleeding edge machines they once were, they're fast enough for me.

    I'm not ready to invest thousands of dollars replacing these machines for what what would only be marginal speed increases. That isn't logical to me.
     
  24. sporadicMotion macrumors 65816

    sporadicMotion

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Location:
    Your girlfriends place
    #24
    For sure. I had a 2.0 uMB that did all that. I went to a 2.66 and really, aside from audio work being a little faster, there's no real difference. The 2.53 is plenty for what most needs are. With the current curve in tech, end users are barely really using what they have except for the true power users. If anything, the 13" really just needs discrete video.
     
  25. MugenRacing thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    #25
    Isnt it true that SSD hard drive wont last long than a normal SATA HD that has moving mechanical parts inside? I read online or in a pc magazine that says although SSD outperforms a mechanical HD, it has low or lesser rewrite times before it will crash. Correct me if i am wrong.. :confused:
     

Share This Page