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

[sushi]

• I am currently waiting for the MacBook Pro 13' series to obtain 3.0ghz or higher.

• 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'.

This brings up an interesting question. Will Apple continue to differentiate between the models with chip speed difference? I would venture to say, they will.

The second question that comes up. Is it physically possible to put a 3.06Ghz chip in the MBP13 today? Probably not due to heat dissipation since the MBP body acts as part of the heat sink.

In the past we had the M/G Hertz wars and then chip makers decided that there were better ways to increase throughput. I wonder how it will be this time around as we've crossed the 3GHz threshold and are heading towards 4GHz.

Of course the longer you wait the faster the throughput will be.

 

[munkees]

end users are barely really using what they have except for the true power users.

too true, hope grand central puts an end to that, as more programs get compiled with it in mind.

 

[CaptainChunk]

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

No. As far as I can remember, Apple pricing has stayed the same across a line and until replacements ship. The only time they get cheaper is with refurb and end-of-life stock.

 

[Some Guy 555]

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..

This is true, however it has been blown way out of proportion. 10,000+ write cycles for a "typical" MLC SSD and 100,000 to 300,000 write cycles for a "typical" SLC SSD. High end ones like the intel have MLC versions that last much longer than some competitors SLC drives, don't even ask how long there SLC ones will last lol.

A typical write cycle is when the drive is fully written to. Think of it like a battery cycle when its fully charged (in this case empty for a SSD) and drains to nothing (full in this case for a SSD). 10,000 cycles of that is lots. Trust me. 300,000 is ridiculous.

There was a quote somewhere along the lines of this "Although there is much speculation about SSD reliability, the true answer is this: A SSD will outlast any device for which it was built for."

This means that you will end up replacing it well before it gets close to wearing out. And that is for MLC Drives. SLC drives can average 30+years IF you hardly ever write to it. HDD last 10 years at most usually.

Try an intel one, I guarantee it will be the best $600-800 you will ever spend.

 

[HLdan]

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.

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

As I said earlier you don't know much about how computers work and your above post just proves this. If the industry strictly advanced on clock speed numbers we would have been at least at 10Ghz seeing as Intel upgrades processors so often.

It doesn't work that way. As others have mentioned there will most likely be more cores rather than raising clock speed numbers. Firstly, heat plays a huge role which is why there are no notebooks at 3.4 Ghz unless they've been overclocked for gaming which is stupid anyway. Why are you so fixated on "3.0 Ghz"? Would you prefer Apple to offer a Macbook Pro Core solo with 333Mhz system bus and 1Mb L2 Cache just so you can get the 3.0 Ghz? I'm sure nobody wants these specs.
My point is clock speed is not the only contributing factor as the other parts of the CPU are much more important.
Musicians and movie studios that do a lot of editing need more powerful specs since they are more likely to do a lot of encoding. Your needs don't even come close to even what a 2.0 Ghz processor with 2GB ram can do.

 

[brand]

I understand.

For some reason I don't think you do.

 

[sammich]

I'm pretty sure if Apple were gonna make a 13' macbook, you would probably be able to fit several Mac Pro's worth of equipment in there. I don't know about portability.

 

[Some Guy 555]

As I said earlier you don't know much about how computers work and your above post just proves this. If the industry strictly advanced on clock speed numbers we would have been at least at 10Ghz seeing as Intel upgrades processors so often.

It doesn't work that way. As others have mentioned there will most likely be more cores rather than raising clock speed numbers. Firstly, heat plays a huge role which is why there are no notebooks at 3.4 Ghz unless they've been overclocked for gaming which is stupid anyway. Why are you so fixated on "3.0 Ghz"? Would you prefer Apple to offer a Macbook Pro Core solo with 333Mhz system bus and 1Mb L2 Cache just so you can get the 3.0 Ghz? I'm sure nobody wants these specs.
My point is clock speed is not the only contributing factor as the other parts of the CPU are much more important.
Musicians and movie studios that do a lot of editing need more powerful specs since they are more likely to do a lot of encoding. Your needs don't even come close to even what a 2.0 Ghz processor with 2GB ram can do.

I agree with you so much... a few months ago a few friends of mine from college were talking about how they really wanted to get the engineering college to build them a system with quad i7 965's (4 quad cores = 16 cores) just so that they "surf the net and email faster". I lost all respect for their intelligence since then.

 

[MacAndy74]

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.

You're not doing anything that's really going to tax a 2.26GHz C2D let alone a 2.53GHz.

Good luck waiting. It could be a while though.

 

[drake]

Yeah, on Sept 6 2009 at 4:20pm exactly.

 

[Dwalls90]

If Apple ignores Arrandale like they did Clarksfield - Expect to see Penryn CPU's up to 3.0Ghz in the Macbook family line (we're talking about uMBP's?)

 

[rukus]

CPU speeds have been steady at somewhere between 2.0-2.7ghz now for several years. sometimes you see in the 3.0+ range, but not very often.

based on trends, i wouldny expect a 3.0ghz/13" laptop anytime soon.

 

[aleksandra.]

Thou shalt not confuse GHz with speed.

No, seriously. How many people need to repeat it to make it clear?

 

[michael.lauden]

You're not doing anything that's really going to tax a 2.26GHz C2D let alone a 2.53GHz.

Good luck waiting. It could be a while though.

editing photos + messing with audio while surfing the web definitely would tax the processor. i don't know what you're talking about but high resolution photo editing/manipulation is the reason people get Mac Pros.

 

[c.dub]

Go watch the most recent keynote. They discuss multi core CPU technology, and why processors/cores do not run above 3.0gHz anymore. Key word: redundant.

 

[magbarn]

Looking at the OP's name I assume he's into import tuning/racing. Forced induction aside, a Pentium 4 at 3ghz while fast is equal to a S2000 engine spinning at 8000 rpms, a Core 2 duo at 3 Ghz is equal to a BMW M3 V8 spinning at 8000 rpms. Same crankshaft speed, but way more power on the V8. Back to computers, I'd take Core 2 Duo at 2ghz with an Intel X-25 SSD (you will tire of the laptop and get rid of it before the SSD dies) over a 4ghz Pentium 4 with a Seagate 500gb 7200rpm hard drive any day of the week. The Core 2 duo machine with SSD will feel MUCH FASTER and RESPONSIVE.