or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple releases new MacBook Pros with Intel Core i7, i5 processors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple releases new MacBook Pros with Intel Core i7, i5 processors - Page 3

post #81 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984 View Post

He's full of it. Why is it not a "bag of hurt" for any other manufacturers? The ONLY reason they don't offer it is because they don't want anything to compete with their "HD Lite" digital downloads.

Jobs' comment had nothing to do with physically putting a Blu-ray drive in a machine but the licensing which would then allow them to add AACS to the OS. However, when the statement was made there was a physical issue with Blu-ray drive drives for the 9.5mm drives that Apple uses.

It's silly to expect Apple would first add Blu-ray to a notebook over their desktop offerings and to offer such a drive with no Blu-ray video playback. If you really need or want Blu-ray for backups then buy an internal or external drive for backups.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post

So because you don't want these things, no one else should have them? And if you do you are a whiner? How intolerant of you.

Because a few people want them then Apple should have included them? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... and the one.

People are whiners if they format their comments as such. People are idiots if they actually expected certain features or options didn't come.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post

I'm assuming you're joking, but the 15" internal is 1440 x 900, or now optionally 1680 x 1050. Neither are Full-HD (1920 x 1080). My MacBook Pro OUTPUTS 1920 x 1080 and beyond. My external monitor 1920 x 1200.

I don't get the people that think 1080p display is significant to image quality. You'd hear cheering if Apple made it a 1080p 16:9 ratio display, even if it was TN. Oh, external output can be up to 2560 x 1600.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

The new graphics on the 13" MacBook look to be three times faster than the old 9400M.

The "GeForce 320M" appears to be based upon the GT315 desktop product line because it has 48 processing cores, rather than the desktop GT320 product which has 72 processing cores.

More interestingly, it is integrated. What this means is that NVIDIA have created a new, previously unheralded, chipset to replace the 9400M (and no, this isn't Ion 2 under a different name) with three times as much graphics capability. The 9400M could do 54 GFLOPS of computation, this new chipset could do over 150 GFLOPS depending on operating clock.

The "GeForce 330M" does appear to be based upon the desktop GT330 or even the GT340. I suspect it has 96 processing cores and can do around 300 GFLOPS of computation.

The Core 2 Duos in the 13" MacBook are a let down compared to getting Core i3s or lower-end Core i5s.

There has been too long of a delay in updating the MacBook line - 10 months is a long time in the Intel PC world.

I look forward to tests between the new and old 13" MBPs. faster CPU and IGP plus 3 hours more of battery life looks great.

This also gives me hope that the MBA will also get a greatly improved battery life.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #82 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

This is my sentiment exactly. I believe there should be a BTO option so those of us who actually want it, have the option of getting. Not necessarily in a MBP, but in a gorgeous 27" iMac. $500 would probably be a little steep. I'm thinking $300-$400 at the most.

The chances that Apple adopts BluRay is slim to none. Look at the overall strategy and industry trajectory. Physical media is dead. Apple wants to build up the iTunes platform as a distribution hub.
post #83 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

This is my sentiment exactly. I believe there should be a BTO option so those of us who actually want it, have the option of getting. Not necessarily in a MBP, but in a gorgeous 27" iMac. $500 would probably be a little steep. I'm thinking $300-$400 at the most.

Why wouldn't you just purchase an external one?
post #84 of 335
Damn, waited for ~9 months for Arrandale in the 13".

Oh well, it's about the right time for me to buy, and I was mostly interested in waiting until the latest were out. The specific chip isn't that important. Love the bumped battery life in the 13". Time to see if I can get a purchase order approved.

If not, I may end up seeing if I can live with the iPad as a laptop replacement at home.
post #85 of 335
Anyone notice the "antiglare" option on the high res 15" display? It's not advertised at "matte" - so what is it?
post #86 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post

Plus it's gently washed with unicorn tears!

By virgins, just before the fairies sprinkle on the pixie dust.
post #87 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBeat View Post

Yeah, to some of you professionals are just whiners, but unlike Blu-ray, 1080p, eSATA, etc. basic performance is a huge part of my ability to do my job efficiently. Time is literally money in the creative field. When you're importing a couple thousand 21 megapixel RAW photos, and running batch changes to them in Aperture, we're talking a significant amount of time spent waiting for the computer. Video guys have it far worse. Desktops are an answer, but they're problematic as more and more of us are doing our work outside of the office on locations, in studios, etc. We need, don't want, a top of the line performing laptop from Apple.

Absolutely!

Sure, I carry my MBP around, but it's mainly from desk to desk, plugged into the wall, only occasionally using it for train/plane/bus travel.

I use Vectorworks and need raw power for my CAD & 3D work. I'd be willing to sacrifice the giant battery if it meant getting a quad-core processor!
Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply
Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply
post #88 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by amac4me View Post

The chances that Apple adopts BluRay is slim to none. Look at the overall strategy and industry trajectory. Physical media is dead. Apple wants to build up the iTunes platform as a distribution hub.

Though you're probably right about the chances of getting blu-ray on a Mac, I hardly think physical media is dead. Last time I checked, CDs were still holding their own against digital downloads. DVDs and Blu-rays are also selling well. The reports of the demise of physical media have been greatly exaggerated.
post #89 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

The new graphics on the 13" MacBook look to be three times faster than the old 9400M.

The "GeForce 320M" appears to be based upon the GT315 desktop product line because it has 48 processing cores, rather than the desktop GT320 product which has 72 processing cores.

More interestingly, it is integrated. What this means is that NVIDIA have created a new, previously unheralded, chipset to replace the 9400M (and no, this isn't Ion 2 under a different name) with three times as much graphics capability. The 9400M could do 54 GFLOPS of computation, this new chipset could do over 150 GFLOPS depending on operating clock.

The "GeForce 330M" does appear to be based upon the desktop GT330 or even the GT340. I suspect it has 96 processing cores and can do around 300 GFLOPS of computation.

The Core 2 Duos in the 13" MacBook are a let down compared to getting Core i3s or lower-end Core i5s.

There has been too long of a delay in updating the MacBook line - 10 months is a long time in the Intel PC world.

Wrong. The GT 330M is basically a faster-clocked 240M and it has 48 processing cores. It's definitely not based on the desktop GT 330. There's more info here and here.
post #90 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Exactly..... let me pre-empt the whiners: No Blu Ray, matte, touch screen, USB3, pixie dust, 20-hour battery, user-removable battery..... moan moan.......

Get on with it, folks!

Actually, there IS a matte option with the hi-res 15" screen.
post #91 of 335
The 15" updates look great. But I've got a 2 year old 15" now. My next laptop will be a 13". I want more portability. This is why I'm disappointed in this release. Seems like Apple once again forgets about the 13". Why can't it have the same processor as the 15"? I would go for it if it came with the i5. But no way am I buying a computer in 2010 with a Core 2 processor. That is 2008 technology.

I thought Apple turned the corner last year when they elevated the 13" to Pro status. But it seems like they've changed their minds again. Too bad. I can hold out another year or two with my 15".

I just hope Apple doesn't do to the laptops what they did to the desktops. I've still got my PowerPC Dual 2.0ghz G5 because I can't afford the Mac Pro's anymore. Its like Apple is abandoning the "middle class" of computers. They make killer pro machines and decent consumer machines, but are forgetting about the prosumer. Those of us who want more power but don't want a one piece desktop system or a powerful but very portable laptop.
post #92 of 335
For esata think FW800 and USB 3 instead.
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #93 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by q dude View Post

Why wouldn't you just purchase an external one?

I might just do that. I'm waiting to see what my next Mac will be (iMac or MacPro).
post #94 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Though you're probably right about the chances of getting blu-ray on a Mac, I hardly think physical media is dead. Last time I checked, CDs were still holding their own against digital downloads. DVDs and Blu-rays are also selling well. The reports of the demise of physical media have been greatly exaggerated.

Well, if you look at the "economics" of information goods (bits), you'll see that the marginal cost of selling a digital copy of say a movie, song, etc is essentially zero. Store it once, sell it numerous time. The scale is enormous. Thus, it's more economical for companies to sell a digital version over a physical version. In terms of scale, there are higher returns. The consumer ends up paying less because the price point is lower but the company selling the good actually makes more per unit.

Apple is clearly a middle-man, look at iTunes, look at iPhone/iPad apps. Apple is platform provider that bring together content creators with those who want to consume content be it songs, movies, apps, etc ...

If Apple were to adopt BluRay, they would have done it by now. The fact that they haven't demonstrates that they do not want to undermine their ability to distribute content and take their cut from the transaction.
post #95 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfscoll View Post

Wrong. The GT 330M is basically a faster-clocked 240M and it has 48 processing cores. It's definitely not based on the desktop GT 330. There's more info here and here.

Well that's rubbish then.

Also rubbish is that with 48 shaders (compared to 16) the 320M is only getting between 1.3x and 1.8x the performance.
post #96 of 335
Apple just confirmed my order. Yeehaa!
post #97 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by amac4me View Post

Well, if you look at the "economics" of information goods (bits), you'll see that the marginal cost of selling a digital copy of say a movie, song, etc is essentially zero. Store it once, sell it numerous time. The scale is enormous. Thus, it's more economical for companies to sell a digital version over a physical version. In terms of scale, there are higher returns. The consumer ends up paying less because the price point is lower but the company selling the good actually makes more per unit.

Sadly, however, digital copies available for download currently do not offer the audio/video quality of a blu-ray disc. Until parity is reached, I for one have no interest.
post #98 of 335
I am currently in possession of a 15inch unibody Macbook Pro with 256MB RAM 9600M GT graphics. What do you think? How does this GPU fare against the 320M built into the new 13" machines? If performance is somehow the same, I might end up selling my current machine and getting a new 13" model. As far as screen real estate goes, my 24" LED Cinema Display gets the job done anyhow...
MBP 15" Unibody GHz 500GB 4GB
iPhone 3GS 16GB
iPod nano black fatty 8GB
Reply
MBP 15" Unibody GHz 500GB 4GB
iPhone 3GS 16GB
iPod nano black fatty 8GB
Reply
post #99 of 335
It's confusing that they don't specify that the i5 and i7 chips are dual core and not quad, I didn't know which it was until I read it here.

And it is disappointing that there is no option on any of the laptops for quad core, they should have at least one machine that competes at the high end if they want to call these things 'pro".
post #100 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by amac4me View Post

Well, if you look at the "economics" of information goods (bits), you'll see that the marginal cost of selling a digital copy of say a movie, song, etc is essentially zero. Store it once, sell it numerous time. The scale is enormous. Thus, it's more economical for companies to sell a digital version over a physical version. In terms of scale, there are higher returns. The consumer ends up paying less because the price point is lower but the company selling the good actually makes more per unit.

Apple is clearly a middle-man, look at iTunes, look at iPhone/iPad apps. Apple is platform provider that bring together content creators with those who want to consume content be it songs, movies, apps, etc ...

If Apple were to adopt BluRay, they would have done it by now. The fact that they haven't demonstrates that they do not want to undermine their ability to distribute content and take their cut from the transaction.

I'm not questioning the "economics of information goods". What I am questioning is the quality of those information goods. I've said this before, but why would I want to buy a given album from iTunes at 256k when I can buy the same album on CD for roughly the same price and get better quality in the process? Also, why would I want to buy the HD-Lite version of a movie from iTunes when I can buy the Blu-ray version with much better audio and video quality for roughly the same price? I understand that the HD-Lite version is "good enough" for the masses, but for me, it isn't. I used to work in the custom A/V integration business and I can tell you, the average customer is not up to dealing with the logistics of digital downloads. They just want to buy a disc (I'm talking about movies here) from Amazon or Target or rent one from Netflix and stick it in their player and watch it. They're going to need to come up with a better delivery method (kinda like the AppleTV), if they want mainstream adoption.

Sorry for going off-topic.
post #101 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBeat View Post

After waiting months for Apple to finally update their MacBook Pro line to catch up in performance with Dell and HP, they finally release new models. However, while they finally went i5 and i7, they only used the new dual core models. You can't even get a quad core version as a BTO. Considering you've been able to buy a quad core laptop from Dell and HP since 2009, this is a pretty big let down.

Those quad cores were either c2q or desktop model i5/i7 chips. The battery life of those systems was pretty awful. The new i5/i7 Apple systems all have hyper-threading active so they are virtual quad cores.



Quote:
Originally Posted by macbuff View Post

Anyone notice the "antiglare" option on the high res 15" display? It's not advertised at "matte" - so what is it?


If you click "Learn More" it does refer to the antiglare option as a matte display. A lot of folks probably see "matte display" and have no idea what that means, but everyone understands "antiglare screen".
post #102 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

It's confusing that they don't specify that the i5 and i7 chips are dual core and not quad, I didn't know which it was until I read it here.

And it is disappointing that there is no option on any of the laptops for quad core, they should have at least one machine that competes at the high end if they want to call these things 'pro".

Both of these sections mention they are dual core, not quad.

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/performance.html

Turbo Boost.

Intel Core i5 and Core i7 processors also feature Turbo Boost. If youre using processor-intensive applications like Aperture 3 or Final Cut Pro that would benefit from an extra performance kick, Turbo Boost dynamically increases the speed of one or both cores, taking a 2.66GHz MacBook Pro all the way up to 3.33GHz.

Hyper-Threading.

Built-in Hyper-Threading allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core, so Mac OS X recognizes four virtual cores instead of just two. When youre running multiple applications at once, the Core i5 and Core i7 processors spread tasks more evenly across a greater number of cores so you can get more done, faster.
post #103 of 335
Two interesting points for buyers:

1) The price difference between the Core i7 17" and Core i7 15" is very slim if you're going to pay $100 for a higher rez panel in the 15". There's even more rez and you have a expresscard slot in exchange for a SD slot, $200 (for the i7 upgrade) and a little weight and size.

2) The performance delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is in the low single digits. The power delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is huge.





http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-...e.25085.0.html

Given both have turbo boost and hyperthreading and both are dual-core I'm getting the i5 unless MBP specific benchmarks show a clear advantage for the i7 MBPs.

17" vs 15" I don't know yet.
post #104 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

I'm not questioning the "economics of information goods". What I am questioning is the quality of those information goods. I've said this before, but why would I want to buy a given album from iTunes at 256k when I can buy the same album on CD for roughly the same price and get better quality in the process? Also, why would I want to buy the HD-Lite version of a movie from iTunes when I can buy the Blu-ray version with much better audio and video quality for roughly the same price? I understand that the HD-Lite version is "good enough" for the masses, but for me, it isn't. I used to work in the custom A/V integration business and I can tell you, the average customer is not up to dealing with the logistics of digital downloads. They just want to buy a disc (I'm talking about movies here) from Amazon or Target or rent one from Netflix and stick it in their player and watch it. They're going to need to come up with a better delivery method (kinda like the AppleTV), if they want mainstream adoption.

Sorry for going off-topic.

I hear ya, it's good enough for the masses not the movie buffs or audiophiles. Over the long-term, quality of digital versions (via download) will increase. The key constraints are bandwidth and the terms imposed by the content owners.
post #105 of 335
Try to decide if the 1680x1050 High Resolution screen is worth the extra $100. I like the glossy...

Thoughts? Advice? I'll be getting a low-end 15" most likely.
post #106 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by amac4me View Post

I hear ya, it's good enough for the masses not the movie buffs or audiophiles. Over the long-term, quality of digital versions (via download) will increase. The key constraints are bandwidth and the terms imposed by the content owners.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. When they've bumped up the quality levels sufficiently, I'll embrace it. After all, the idea of logging into a server and downloading a new release which I can they play easily on my TV is very appealing.
post #107 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue View Post

Released within a day of each other:

The 2.53 GHz, 17-inch MacBook Pro $2,299

Adobe Creative Suite 5 Master Collection $2,599

Just sayin'.

MS Office Home and Student Edition $149.95 (Business Edition $399.95)
iWork only $79.00
post #108 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

No USB 3.0 or eSATA. Just a performance bump.

any time they slip something in under the cover of darkness, you know it's only a performance bump.

it's a respectable bump, I would have liked to have seen the open PCI in the high end 15" so folks could have the option of esata. and if they were going to go 'high resolution' why stop at 1050. give us true 1080 and then shock and delight folks with native support for playback of BR discs from an external in the next OS pointdate

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #109 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMayes View Post

USB 3.0 would be ok. Do you really think adding eSATA is even on Apple's roadmap for their portables? If you do you may want to look elsewhere. It's just not going to happen because they have no good reason to add it.

Then again I guess you had to find SOMETHING to complain about.

Possibly not, but if they'd give us back the ExpressCard slot, then we'd have the choice... I get that not many people used it, but an EC SD reader is under $20, and those of us who did buy cards have come to rely on them. My first-gen 15" MBP is due for an upgrade, and as a mobile user I almost always have my ExpressCard 3G in place. As such, I've now got to decide between the 17", or spending another $200 to replace my 3G card with a USB device.

Hopefully this doesn't come across as a useless rant - to me, it's a very real one. A 'pro' laptop without a card slot seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me.
post #110 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyapple View Post

There are 185,000 apps in the App Store and these MacBook Pros can't run any of them!

Unless I can install any app I want to on my portable it is not a real computer.

No touch screen, no accelerometer, no option for 3G... No deal!


Nice trolling, bet you will catch something. And thanks, just realized that my macbook is not a phone, I had not put that together yet.

All kidding aside, it would be cool if the mac could run my iPhone apps, but I didn't expect that in a hardware bump, but maybe in the next version of OSX.
post #111 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by amac4me View Post

I hear ya, it's good enough for the masses not the movie buffs or audiophiles. Over the long-term, quality of digital versions (via download) will increase. The key constraints are bandwidth and the terms imposed by the content owners.

True, some people want better quality. Also the convenience of downloads is great. I think the issue is (when looking at pricing), is what you get. The quality that is downloaded from iTune is not that bad. The main issue is pricing. Like rob55 said, you can buy much better quality for almost the same price. The quality from iTunes for most people is enough, but what would make it even better and more popular is if the pricing was lower. Look what you can get from Netflix for $9. And if you think about it Apple is competing with that.... and they are losing.

Of course we all know the studios are determining the pricing, but they are shooting themselves in the foot. If they lowered the prices, they would sell a lot more movies. I know I would rent a lot more via iTunes if that was the case.
post #112 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

...and if they were going to go 'high resolution' why stop at 1050. give us true 1080 and then shock and delight folks with native support for playback of BR discs from an external in the next OS pointdate

Ahh, wishfull thinking. I think it truly would have been a shock and delight if they had surprised us with BR support. However, every update that goes by without BR introduction makes it that much less likely that it will ever happen.
post #113 of 335
These look to be exactly what I expected, except for the surprise screen options... I think Hi-res anti-glare is going to be a huge seller...

So now I face that dreaded decsion, do I buy one now, earlier than I really need but inline with what I planned for to replace my 2008 MBP, or wait 6 months in hopes they add USB 3? Being that currently most of my external drives are FW800, waiting is really about being able to buy USB3 extenal drives now which have a longer useful horizon that FW seems to... my favorite portable the Seagate FreeAgentGo Pro for Mac FW800 kit seems to of been discontinued, I'd have bought two more 500gb versions if a could have.
post #114 of 335
On another note, if I am reading the graphs correctly, there doesn't seem to be much of a performance difference between i5 and i7. Am I missing something? Is the difference worth $200?
post #115 of 335
Does anyone have numbers comparing a "possible" i3 to the c2d still used in the 13inchers? My guess woudl be, that there isn't that much performance gain (of none whatsoever) an no or just marginal lower wattage. I also stumbled over C2D being rebranded as i3s? Anyone got details information on that topic?
"Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level and beats you with experience."
Reply
"Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level and beats you with experience."
Reply
post #116 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by X38 View Post

Still no touch screen?

no, you can touch the screen, just don't forget to wipe off the fingerprints :-)
post #117 of 335
I was tempted by the 13" model but Core-i5 and a high res screen was just too tempting. 15" model coming my way.
post #118 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

Both of these sections mention they are dual core, not quad.

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/performance.html

Thanks for the link. Still, odd that there's no mention on the tech specs page, which would seem to be the first place to look for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post

Battery life. You don't need a faster chip, but you need 10 hours between plug-ins.

Correction, YOU need 10 hours. You don't know what HE needs.

And that's why BTO options exist, not all consumers need the same thing.
post #119 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by marik View Post

Wow. Just found this, and I'm very confused. http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/25/i...for-video-med/

The link seems to suggest that the integrated Intel HD graphic chips are worse than the Nvidia offering in the previous models? ? :s

Much much worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amac4me View Post

The chances that Apple adopts BluRay is slim to none. Look at the overall strategy and industry trajectory. Physical media is dead. Apple wants to build up the iTunes platform as a distribution hub.

Problem for Apple here is that when it comes to videos, the consumer is largely saying no. Apple wants a monopoly like they have in music players, but the consumers aren't interested in that.
post #120 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by ff11 View Post

On another note, if I am reading the graphs correctly, there doesn't seem to be much of a performance difference between i5 and i7. Am I missing something? Is the difference worth $200?

Absolutely. Read the Apple Store spec sheet.

Hint: It is here http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...CBOOKPRO-INDEX
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple releases new MacBook Pros with Intel Core i7, i5 processors