AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Alleged MacBook Pro pictures reveal Apple's high-speed 'Thunderbolt' port
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Alleged MacBook Pro pictures reveal Apple's high-speed 'Thunderbolt' port - Page 3

post #81 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:02am
Why not just call it LightPeak? The second makes me think of fiber optics more than the first.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Also, I'm not buying that the new MBP's would only have the Sandy Bridge IGP and no seperate GPU, because that would mean they have weaker graphics than the current MacBook Air. Not going to happen.

Very good point, remember when Apple made the 13" a pro model they touted that the graphics & firewire were a big part of what made it a pro model & separated it from the Air & the white MacBook.

Take a picture of the side of any new MacBook, photoshop out regular icon & add a thunderbolt, add a directional action blur, alter your curves to make it appear a bit more washed out, add camera noise, add slight blur to the noise, save to a lower quality jpg and you have an authentic looking photo.

If the photo were taking with a lot better quality to it I might believe it but the fact that in this day & age the photos are so terrible screams alteration. Bad quality is often used to coverup alteration.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtm135 View Post

Why not just call it LightPeak? The second makes me think of fiber optics more than the first.

SInce its using copper, that might be why Apple feels a name change is needed.

Plus, will Intel be using the same Apple designed and VESA standardize mini-DisplayPort port for LightPeak. If not, then that doubly makes a name change important.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:05am
Methinks lies, all lies. How incredibly convenient that the leaked photo is completely identical to a current 13" MacBook Pro, but with the Mini DisplayPort icon changed to a thunderbolt. Seems extremely unlikely. That, and Apple putting an i5 in the entry-level MacBook Pro is equally unlikely; we'll be lucky if they finally stop using Core 2 Duos.

Whether this report is true or not, we now have very conflicting rumors; others say an i3 for the 13" along with a 1440x900 display and SSD for booting, while this report has none of those things.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgaf View Post

I have always been a fan of windows, but recently I have decided to go to "the other side " and buy a MacBook Pro. However, I will be buying it with all my savings, and as that is a big financial effort, I really want high value-for-money.
I will be buying the 15".

If there isn't a redesign (or at least liquidmetal), if the thunderbolt port isn't compatible with other types of ports (usb 3.0 and its precedents), if the discrete graphics card isn't upgraded, and if there is no OSX-dedicated SSD, I believe that the upgrade isn't worth it.

Really disappointed, hope this is fake and Apple surprises us with real goodies

Otherwise... I will have to remain windows-attached for the next 4/5 years..

I would suggest turning your current PC into a Hackintosh to give it a try before spending the money on a new MBP. If you learn to love OS X, then buy one, if not, then you'll know.
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #86 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:08am
Thunderbolt = 10gb/s using copper. Apple will use Mini-DisplayPort as the interface to differentiate it from...

Lightpeak = 100gb/s (theoretical) using optical. USB-looking interface. Apple will roll this out when it's available and you'll be able to buy adapters for thunderbolt. <-- This is the one port to rule them all; Thunderbolt is still too slow (when combined with power, ethernet, dual monitor, etc) to be a one-port solution.

Thunder moves slower than Light[ning].
I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
post #87 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Whether this report is true or not, we now have very conflicting rumors; others say an i3 for the 13" along with a 1440x900 display and SSD for booting, while this report has none of those things.

Thats because those other reports are not only false, but weak lies that you fell for. i3 does not refer to 13, i5 to 15 and i7 to 17 notebooks. That is not what defines the Intel chips. There is little chance Apple will use anything lower than Core-i5. Core-i3 doesnt save on power usage or chip size, and only offers a slightly lower price for chip features that Apple tends to utilize.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyopiaRocks View Post

Thunderbolt = 10gb/s using copper. Apple will use Mini-DisplayPort as the interface to differentiate it from...

Im guessing 4 to 5Gbps for Thunderbolt.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

So you think by keeping a single, low-end model with the previous dimensions and weight means that the entire line will also keep the previous dimensions and weight despite the longstanding precedence of Apple keeping an older style build with some simple internal and simple external changes?

That's a good point, but it would still surprise me if they re-used every other component except the CPU for the lowest-end model, it would surprise me if the lowest-end model would have an i5 instead of an i3, and it would also surprise me if the lowest-end model would not have a discrete GPU. I think it is very likely the current entry-level 13" will replace the white MacBook, that makes perfect sense. But I would at the very least expect some internal changes to it that would change its size and weight. Even if it only had a smaller, higher-density battery the weight would go down by more than 10 grams. I also can't imagine the resolution for the 13 inchers will stay at 1280x800 when the 13" MBA has a higher resolution. You'd imagine it would be a quick & easy upgrade for Apple to just use the same screens for the 13" MBP's and the 13" MBA's.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:16am
@ d-range, my apologizes to the tone of my previous post. I thought I was replying to MacRulez.
Reply
Reply
post #91 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

Thats because those other reports are not only false, but weak lies that you fell for. i3 does not refer to 13, i5 to 15 and i7 to 17 notebooks. That is not what defines the Intel chips. There is little chance Apple will use anything lower than Core-i5. Core-i3 doesnt save on power usage or chip size, and only offers a slightly lower price for chip features that Apple tends to utilize.

You're talking about the company that's using 1.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in six of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

That's a good point, but it would still surprise me if they re-used every other component except the CPU for the lowest-end model, it would surprise me if the lowest-end model would have an i5 instead of an i3, and it would also surprise me if the lowest-end model would not have a discrete GPU. I think it is very likely the current entry-level 13" will replace the white MacBook, that makes perfect sense. But I would at the very least expect some internal changes to it that would change its size and weight. Even if it only had a smaller, higher-density battery the weight would go down by more than 10 grams.

But thats the entry model, just like with the plastic MacBook being the heavier and thicker model even after they made great strides with the MBP. Its par for the course especially if they drop the optical drive from the 13 MBP, where space is highly constrained and a dGPU and larger battery and thinner casing can only easily happen with the removal of the optical drive.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:21am
F*** you Mac division of Apple, your f****ng days are numbered. Intel graphics, if it is true, is absolute bollocks. iPad is the future. And so the decline starts without Steve...

Edit: Yes I'm pissed and irrational. It will take me some time to calm down. If that is true this update is rubbish at least w.r.t. the 13" MBP. Same resolution, worse graphics, sure the port is super duper but it will take time for market adoption, initially it's going to be an overkilled MiniDP Port.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

You're talking about the company that's using 1.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in six of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.

Are you just not using your brain or purposely trolling? Small Form Factor Ultra-Low Voltage CPUs are much more costlier for reasons that you either already know but choosing to ignore for trollish reasons or won’t ever understand at this point if you think that clock speed is the way you measure the price of a CPU.

Here are some examples:
i7-680UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.46 GHz 32nm) $317
i7-660UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.33 GHz 32nm) $289
i7-640UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.20 GHz 32nm) $289
i7-620UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.06 GHz 32nm) $278

i5-2540M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.60 GHz 32nm) $266
i5-2520M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.50 GHz 32nm) $225
i5-580M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 32nm) $266
i5-560M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 32nm) $225
i5-540M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.53 GHz 32nm) $257
i5-520M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.40 GHz 32nm) $225

Reality quashes your fantasy world once again.


PS: Which Sandy Bridge Core-i3 will Apple use? Intel lists nothing on their price list and Wikipedia notes only one and that it doesn’t have Turbo. For you to claim that Core-i3 will be a guaranteed for all 13” MBPs you’ll have to make a better argument than that.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

NOT in the slightest does this alleviate the complaint regarding the lack of official wireless transfers! Many time I just want to transfer a picture or two, maybe three or four songs I bought on my iPad, or a single app...etc.

I still have to pull out a cable and connect the iPad for something SO trivial! The Zine had this feature years ago and it works perfectly. Is Apple refusing to add it because they are afraid of being seen as copying Apple? This makes no sense at all.

I... wasn't anywhere near talking about wireless transfers in the post you quoted.

At 10Gbps, you'll be fine plugging things in. You can start complaining again when the 802.11ac AirPort Extreme comes out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheinside View Post

Are you just being funny? If not, the extra two pins on a Mac are for power supply. They have nothing to do with data rate capabilities. 4-pin FireWire is just as good as 6-pin FireWire in terms of throughput. Nothing really pansy about them.

You made my point for me. POWERED. DRIVES. et. al.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtm135 View Post

Why not just call it LightPeak? The second makes me think of fiber optics more than the first.

Probably because the cables aren't fiber.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

F*** you Mac division of Apple, your f****ng days are numbered. Intel graphics, if it is true, is absolute bollocks. iPad is the future. And so the decline starts without Steve...

Edit: Yes I'm pissed and irrational. It will take me some time to calm down. If that is true this update is rubbish at least w.r.t. the 13" MBP. Same resolution, worse graphics, sure the port is super duper but it will take time for market adoption, initially it's going to be an overkilled MiniDP Port.

Please note that millions of people couldn't care less and will buy it anyway. Apple can't use nVidia chips, but why they didn't go to ATI is beyond me.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #96 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

You're talking about the company that's using 1.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in six of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.

The C2D's used in the MBA and the low-end MBP's aren't the same parts as the 2008 ones. I agree that the 13" MBP's have been in pretty desperate need for a CPU upgrade for a long time already, but for the MacBook Air, choosing a C2D + discrete GPU instead of a Core i3 + IGP makes perfect sense, especially since the HD3000 in the Sandy Bridge i3's wasn't available at the time the current MBA was released. An ultraportable like the MBA is usually not used for number crunching anyway, but it _is_ served by longer battery life, and with that in mind a slower C2D with an OpenCL capable GPU makes a lot of sense. I expect OS X 10.7 to make much more use of GPU computing where possible, which is much more power efficient than slapping in a faster GPU, and wil also be faster overall (anything you offload to the GPU frees up the CPU). Last but not least the performance difference between the pre-Sandy Bridge i3 without Turbo boost and the C2D in the MacBook Air is not as big is you might think, especially not in terms of perceived responsiveness, the SSD in the MBA has much, much more impact on that.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:30am
I'm guessing these specs are correct. I wanted to see them bring the screen resolutions and instant on capabilities of the MBA to the MBP, and I still think maybe they will for the 15" and 17" models, but I'm not surprised that they haven't for the 13" model. Here's why:

Apple doesn't make their own products obsolete.

Who would buy the 13" MBA for an extra $100 when you could get the instant on capabilities of the MBA with the battery life, hard drive capacity, and superdrive of a MBP and the performance of an i5 over a Core2? The 13" MBA would only appeal to people who were willing to give up a LOT of functionality and performance to shave a third of the weight off of their computer. But these same people would probably get the 11" MBA to shave off even more weight!

These specs allow the 13" MBA to differentiate itself from a 13" MBP with instant on, standby time, and better screen. That's a better balance that gives it a place in the market.

I still think there is a reasonable chance we will get these features in the 15" and 17" MBPs

These features will eventually find their way to ALL macbook pros, but not this soon after the launch of the 13' MBA
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:31am
I'm upset. Literally. Agreed with jimmy above the 15" better be the bomb or... Ah well, at least I can save up for iPad2 instead. Or doing my Open Water diving course somewhere nice. Looks like mah nice little MacBook Alu 2ghz will have to do for at least another year!

Also agreed with jimmy above I did post a few days ago that the MBP 13" upgrade would clash with the MBA, and noted my confusion.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

Are you just not using your brain or purposely trolling? Small Form Factor Ultra-Low Voltage CPUs are much more costlier for reasons that you either already know but choosing to ignore for trollish reasons or wont ever understand at this point if you think that clock speed is the way you measure the price of a CPU.

Here are some examples:
i7-680UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.46 GHz 32nm) $317
i7-660UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.33 GHz 32nm) $289
i7-640UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.20 GHz 32nm) $289
i7-620UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.06 GHz 32nm) $278

i5-2540M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.60 GHz 32nm) $266
i5-2520M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.50 GHz 32nm) $225
i5-580M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 32nm) $266
i5-560M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 32nm) $225
i5-540M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.53 GHz 32nm) $257
i5-520M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.40 GHz 32nm) $225


Reality quashes your fantasy world once again.

My mistake. Allow me to rephrase. You're talking about the company that's using 2.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in four of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:33am
Macrumors has supposedly confirmed these pictures. I am still unsure. It looks like there is a pixel wide seam running through the left USB port. I am also unsure why you need two USB ports AND a FireWire port if you got this super duper new Thunderbolt port? Especially on the entry level which this must be to run only on integrated graphics.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by markb View Post

Macrumors has supposedly confirmed these pictures. I am still unsure. It looks like there is a pixel wide seam running through the left USB port. I am also unsure why you need two USB ports AND a FireWire port if you got this super duper new Thunderbolt port? Especially on the entry level which this must be to run only on integrated graphics.

Honestly it doesn't make sense. Sure you got a fast CPU but the hard disk is slow. And you got a fast I/O but without fast hard drives again. It's disturbing. This is one product announcement I am actually dreading for the first time ever.

I want a faster CPU but I'm going backward on graphics. Then I'd have to put in a 7200rpm HDD or aftermarket SSD anyway. Where's the improvement besides CPU? This update is too pro-Intel and not pro-Apple enough. Not liking it one bit at this stage, and yes, I still haven't calmed down. Winds of change beat furiously overhead as we encircle the dawning of a new IT age post-laptop post-desktop.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Honestly it doesn't make sense. Sure you got a fast CPU but the hard disk is slow. And you got a fast I/O but without fast hard drives again. It's disturbing. This is one product announcement I am actually dreading for the first time ever.

I want a faster CPU but I'm going backward on graphics. Then I'd have to put in a 7200rpm HDD or aftermarket SSD anyway. Where's the improvement besides CPU? This update is too pro-Intel and not pro-Apple enough. Not liking it one bit at this stage, and yes, I still haven't calmed down. Winds of change beat furiously overhead as we encircle the dawning of a new IT age post-laptop post-desktop.

I'm having the same thoughts. If this is legit and this is not just a replacement for the white MacBook, with the other 13" and up models getting a major overhaul, it would be a huge disappointment in my book. I can't even think of a good reason to upgrade my late 2008 MacBook (the first aluminium one) to a laptop with the specs I see on this box.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:53am
WHAT? NO DISCRETE GPU FOR THE 13"? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Apple, why do this? The Sandy Bridge IGP is barely as good as the 320M. Those extra 128 Mb better be worth it.

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply
post #104 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:55am
I am interested in Thunderbolt!
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 152
2/23/11 at 8:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

My mistake. Allow me to rephrase. You're talking about the company that's using 2.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in four of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.

May as well ignore the white MacBook and the Mac Mini in this discussion as well. For the form factor, the c2d and 320M paired up are just as effective as an i3 w/IGP. Personally I think an upgrade to SB for the Mini will be a very nice upgrade indeed
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Honestly it doesn't make sense. Sure you got a fast CPU but the hard disk is slow. And you got a fast I/O but without fast hard drives again. It's disturbing. This is one product announcement I am actually dreading for the first time ever.

I want a faster CPU but I'm going backward on graphics. Then I'd have to put in a 7200rpm HDD or aftermarket SSD anyway. Where's the improvement besides CPU? This update is too pro-Intel and not pro-Apple enough. Not liking it one bit at this stage, and yes, I still haven't calmed down. Winds of change beat furiously overhead as we encircle the dawning of a new IT age post-laptop post-desktop.

One thing's for sure: if this is supposed to be the new baseline 1199$-MBP, it's an ill-conceived configuration, as you correctly point out. The i5 would be a major improvement over the current C2D, but the IGP sucks. Thunderbolt has the potential to be amazing, but I don't really care about fast I/O when a) there aren't any devices supporting it and b) the internal hard drive is puny and laughably slow. And don't even get me started on the screen. 1280x800 on 13 inches in the year 2011? It's not April 1st, is it?

So yeah, all in all this is a weird machine. Very lopsided and unbalanced configuration, if you ask me. Again, the only thing that makes sense to me is to consider this the replacement of the $999 white MB. If it's supposed to be anything else, it's a failure.
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:02am
Imo, this is fake. I can't see Apple releasing the MacBook Air months ago, calling it the "next generation of MacBooks", then coming with specifications like this several months later.

While Sandy Bridge and Light Peak certainly are nice and interesting features, the lack of SSD and the better screen simply doesn't sound right. In general, the Air model would feel more responsive and would deliver a better experience. I can't see them going in this direction. The models don't get any lighter, there's still the obligatory SuperDrive in there, and they would be taking a (small) step backwards in terms of graphics.

Except for the users who really need raw processing power, without much more, in a package that is as small as possible, the MacBook Air is a better option. It's lighter, better looking and would perform the same or better in day-to-day tasks.

If this is true however, it'll be a huge disappointment.
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:03am
Oh, did anyone notice that:

The iSight, errrr, FaceTime camera will do HD
The memory speed was increased to 1333MHz from 1066Hz
The SD Slot was upgraded to SDXC
The HD storage was increased to 320GB (from 250, assuming this is the basic version)
It's an i5! Not an i3 many thought it would be.
The Sandy Bridge IGP, although barely as good as the 320M, has 1.5x the memory shared, and has that neat transcoding stuff that should kick the 320M in the ass as far as video goes.

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply
post #109 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:13am
I hope this is fake, cuz "Thunderbolt" sounds REALLY lame. But, hey, it's just a marketing title...

Light Peak = bright, futuristic, clean, fast
Thunderbolt = Harry Potter, Monster Truck, racehorse
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep13 View Post

It's definitely photoshopped. The perspective on the ports changes dramatically between the firewire & thunderbolt port, and notice how the shiny edge on the right comes to a point and disappears under the second USB port from the right.

What do you think is easier?
1. Taking a picture of a real MacBook Pro today, and then just photoshopping the thunderbolt logo on it. Changing perspective is easily explained by a wide angle lens.
2. Your claim of compositing port photos taken from different angles onto a single photo seemlessly?

Why would someone do it your way, when it's easier just to take a picture of an existing MacBook Pro?

It may be photoshopped, but I find your reasoning ridiculous. It reminds me of people who claim bad Chinese restaurants serve dog or pigeon instead of chicken. Have you ever tried to catch a pigeon or stray dog? It's much easier and cheaper to use actual chicken.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post

I hope this is fake, cuz "Thunderbolt" sounds REALLY lame. But, hey, it's just a marketing title...

Light Peak = bright, futuristic, clean, fast
Thunderbolt = Harry Potter, Monster Truck, racehorse

People used to complain about Bonjour, too. A month later, nobody cared.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Thunderbolt? I prefer the 'Light Peak' name. A unique implementation might require a different name but 'thunderbolt' seems so juvenile. Oh well, kids will love it.

Couldn't agree more. What a stupid name. Seriously, just stick with Light Peak.

Is this Thor's computer? So stupid...
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

This has to be the replacement for the white Macbook. The specs don't make sense for an MBP, especially the screen.

Considering the specs show a FW800 port, this would have to be a 13" Pro since the white MB doesn't have a FW port. My guess is this is the entry-level 13" pro and the higher_end 13" may get the better screen, etc.

I guess we won't know for sure till tomorrow.
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

At least the GPU is HD3000, which is decent for a non gaming PC. I was scare they used HD2000 which is very bad.
I still wonder what GPU is going to be on higher models.

Since most of the new external USB drives are going to be USB 3.0, I was hoping for USB 3.0 support...

Actually, all Intel Sandy Bridge mobile processors use the HD3000 GPU. It's the desktop CPU's that use either the HD2000 or HD3000 depending on the model you get.
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:50am
let's hope these are specs for macbook replacement not the macbook pro replacement.

would make more sense to me, as an upgrade path for current macbook customers, they would benefit from unibody construction, backlit keyboard and sd card slot.

it's hard to believe (at least for me) that after hi-res 13" panel used in macbook air apple would use lower res panel in macbook pro range with the same screen size.

but i might be wrong and/or wishful.

but the earlier rumors regarding 16GB ssd on board for system would make sense (macbook air flies in comparison with my macbook pro 13 late 2009).

what i hope is gonna happen is this:

mba 11"
mba 13"
mb 13" (this one)
mbp 13"-17" with dedicated ssd storage for system
and 15-17" with dedicated gpu

13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB | Get 2 Months Free @ LOVEFiLM

Reply

13" MacBook Air 1.8 GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD | 32GB iPhone 4 | PS3 Slim 250GB | Get 2 Months Free @ LOVEFiLM

Reply
post #116 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:51am
Ok, after the initial shock, those specs aren't bad at all, if true. Anand Tech's tests show that the SB IGP is as good as a ATI 5450 (low-end dedicated), so they are actually a tad better than the 320M.

A classmate recently bought a 1.4 Quad-core i7 with 5450 graphics. It runs Dead Space 2 really well (better than my 2010 320M 13" MBP). I guess that for the 13" the real bottleneck now is in the processor, not the GPU (for games at least).

Considering that Anand also tested the Turbo Boost for graphics (essentially an official overclock) and that it showed an average 19% increased performance on games over the stock condition IGP, that's not quite bad. Quick Sync is better even than high-end dedicated GPUs for video transcoding, not to mention that in pure CPU terms, Sandy Bridge is 20% faster clock-for-clock versus the Nehalem, which in turn is God-knows-how-much faster than the C2D in current MBPs. So going from 2.4 C2D to 2.3 i5 this year will give the MBP a much greater leap than most would think. Compression/Decompression of files is also faster clock-for-clock.

If the screen turns out to be IPS, the FaceTime camera is *really* HD and Thunderbolt proves to be quite slick, not a bad update at all.

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply
post #117 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

Well, yeah, I obviously don't know if this is the new MBP or the new MB or simply a fake. But let's just think about this for a minute.

Option 1: This is the new entry-level 1199$ Macbook Pro. Possible, but not very likely IMHO. At least I hope so, because it would be very, very strange to introduce a supposedly pro-level laptop with a display that's vastly inferior to the screen in the current ultraportable lineup. And I don't just mean the 13"-Air; even the 11"-MBA has more pixels than this leaked laptop. For 1199$, this would be a very tough sell, considering you can get a 13"-MBA with a much better screen, an SSD, and no useles optical drive for 1299$.

Option 2: Apple axe the white Macbook (or relegate it to EDU-only status, kind of like the eMac way back when) and introduce this leaked product as the new entry-level portable at 999$. Now THAT would be a pretty convincing move. The terrible resolution still strikes me as weird, but at 999$, this would be a fine replacement for the plastic Macbook, and it would give consumers a very decent new option at the entry-level. If you wanted to get into Macs, you could then choose between the very capable and portable 11"-MBA, an upgraded iPad, or this new unibody Macbook.

I'm not necessarily saying option two is more likely or anything, it's just the scenario that makes more sense to me. If they go with option 1, it will be disappointing, but not surprising. Apple haven't ever taken the 13"-pro seriously since they introduced it in June 2009.

Well said.
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Please note that millions of people couldn't care less and will buy it anyway. Apple can't use nVidia chips, but why they didn't go to ATI is beyond me.

yes they can... they cannot use nvidia chipsets with IGPs, they must use intel chipsets... but they can still put in any GPU they want.. nvidia GPUs will work fine.
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 152
2/23/11 at 9:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

One thing's for sure: if this is supposed to be the new baseline 1199$-MBP, it's an ill-conceived configuration, as you correctly point out. The i5 would be a major improvement over the current C2D, but the IGP sucks. Thunderbolt has the potential to be amazing, but I don't really care about fast I/O when a) there aren't any devices supporting it and b) the internal hard drive is puny and laughably slow. And don't even get me started on the screen. 1280x800 on 13 inches in the year 2011? It's not April 1st, is it?

So yeah, all in all this is a weird machine. Very lopsided and unbalanced configuration, if you ask me. Again, the only thing that makes sense to me is to consider this the replacement of the $999 white MB. If it's supposed to be anything else, it's a failure.

As I already pointed out, it isn't quite bad. But if this is the $999 model, then there is hope for the $1199 one to have a newer dedicated GPU, so I hope you are right

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply
post #120 of 152
2/23/11 at 10:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

Why would someone do it your way, when it's easier just to take a picture of an existing MacBook Pro?

I don't know.. maybe because they didn't have an existing MacBook Pro to photograph? ..no camera? ..overconfident in their own Photoshop skills?

Doesn't really matter -- I don't believe the picture is real. We'll know soon enough.. I don't being wrong, it happens all the time.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Alleged MacBook Pro pictures reveal Apple's high-speed 'Thunderbolt' port