or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Leaked photo shows 15" MacBook Pro with i7 CPU and AMD graphics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Leaked photo shows 15" MacBook Pro with i7 CPU and AMD graphics

post #1 of 60
Thread Starter 
New leaked photos reveal the details of Apple's MacBook Pro refresh, with updated notebooks featuring AMD graphics, and high-end 15- and 17-inch models packing quad-core Intel Core i7 processors [updated].

French Apple site Mac4Ever (via Google Translate) posted a photo of what appears to be a 15-inch MacBook Pro box. The site also claimed to have obtained several pictures of the 13-inch earlier on Wednesday.

The site was unable to verify exactly which model the box was for, but asserts that it is "without doubt the entry or mid-range," because the 3D card has just 256MB of RAM.

According to the photo, Apple's next-generation 15-inch MacBook Pro has:
An Intel Core 2.0 GHz i7 quad-core processor with a 6MB cache
4GB of RAM at 1333 MHz
500GB hard drive
15.4-inch screen with 1440x900 resolution
Intel HD Graphics 3000
AMD Radeon HD 6490M GPU with 256MB of memory
FaceTime HD camera
8x SuperDrive
Thunderbolt and Mini DisplayPort
SDXC slot, FireWire 800 port and two USB 2.0 ports
Audio and Ethernet ports
Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
2.54 kg in weight


Update: Mac-TV.de also obtained details and photos of the boxes of the 15-inch and 17-inch models. Specifications of the 15-inch are the same as listed above.



Specifications for the 17-inch model are said to be the same as well, but with a 2.2GHz Quad Core i7 processor and a screen resolution of 1,920-by-1,200 pixels.



And finally, Mr. X, a known and proven tipster, provided part numbers for the five new MacBook Pro models set to arrive on Thursday:

MC700LL/A - MBP 13.3/2.3/2X2GB/320/SD-USA
MC724LL/A - MBP 13.3/2.7/2X2GB/500/SD-USA
MC721LL/A - MBP 15.4/2.0/2X2GB/500/SD/GLSY-USA
MC723LL/A -MBP 15.4/2.2/2X2GB/750/SD/GLSY-USA
MC725LL/A - MBP 17/2.2/2X2GB/750/SD/GLSY-USA

Mac4Ever has a mixed track record with predicting Apple products. In July of last year, the site incorrectly claimed that Apple would release a 64-bit version of iLife '11 with a 'mystery application.' In September, the site correctly predicted that Apple was working on a FaceTime for Mac application, though a rumored FaceTime for Windows has yet to materialize.

According to one report, Apple will wait until after Intel's press event unveiling the Light Peak/Thunderbolt technology to take the wraps of the new MacBook Pros, though it's also possible that the Mac maker could launch the notebooks online early Thursday morning as usual.

For more information, see AppleInsider's MacBook Pro rumor roundup and information archive.
post #2 of 60
In the meantime, the online Apple Store is already closed.
post #3 of 60
Nooo!!!!! 1680x1050 should be standard! I sure hope this is the low end model, or I'm waiting for the next rev!
post #4 of 60
Wait... Intel doesn't make any mobile quad-core chips yet, afaik?

Hmm.. its not totally clear from intel's site. Can anyone confirm?
post #5 of 60
I can't wait until this technology hits the Mac mini.
post #6 of 60
2.0 GHz base speed on the processor is pathetic even disgusting, i really don't care how much better the CPU is performance wise on a per cycle basis either. Don't even bring up speed stepping or whatever Intel calls it either. It is pretty obvious Apple didn't find a way to handle the thermals in the current MBP format. Expect bench marks to be all over tge map due to throttling.

The rest of the machine leaves a lot to be desired also. It isn't worth going into details though as I don't see a strong reason to upgrade to this model. It underwhelms in so many ways that it is probably better to wait till Septembef. Yes I'm fully expecting a real upgrade to come rather quickly.

Being the owner of an early 2008 MBP I've learned my lesson.
post #7 of 60
If Thunderbolt and Mini DisplayPort use the same port will the screens be updates as well then?
post #8 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

2.0 GHz base speed on the processor is pathetic even disgusting, i really don't care how much better the CPU is performance wise on a per cycle basis either. Don't even bring up speed stepping or whatever Intel calls it either. It is pretty obvious Apple didn't find a way to handle the thermals in the current MBP format. Expect bench marks to be all over tge map due to throttling.

The rest of the machine leaves a lot to be desired also. It isn't worth going into details though as I don't see a strong reason to upgrade to this model. It underwhelms in so many ways that it is probably better to wait till Septembef. Yes I'm fully expecting a real upgrade to come rather quickly.

Being the owner of an early 2008 MBP I've learned my lesson.

dude... quad-core in an apple notebook is pretty big, no?
post #9 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

2.0 GHz base speed on the processor is pathetic even disgusting, i really don't care how much better the CPU is performance wise on a per cycle basis either. ... [snip]

Grumpy aren't we. I'm guessing a new laptop isn't the only thing you aren't getting!
post #10 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by mungler View Post

Wait... Intel doesn't make any mobile quad-core chips yet, afaik?

Hmm.. its not totally clear from intel's site. Can anyone confirm?

Well, it seems the be an Apple-SKU since the new mobile i7 quad-core chips should start at 2,2 Ghz, not 2.0:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3876/i...bridge-part-ii



But i'm sure you can upgrade it for a bit extra of cash.
post #11 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

2.0 GHz base speed on the processor is pathetic even disgusting, i really don't care how much better the CPU is performance wise on a per cycle basis either. Don't even bring up speed stepping or whatever Intel calls it either. It is pretty obvious Apple didn't find a way to handle the thermals in the current MBP format. Expect bench marks to be all over tge map due to throttling.

The rest of the machine leaves a lot to be desired also. It isn't worth going into details though as I don't see a strong reason to upgrade to this model. It underwhelms in so many ways that it is probably better to wait till Septembef. Yes I'm fully expecting a real upgrade to come rather quickly.

Being the owner of an early 2008 MBP I've learned my lesson.

Typical response from the uneducated. Clock speed is no longer a clear indicator of performance and is only a small part of the package itself. The multi cores work together at the base 2.0Ghz speed but if you are running a non multi-threaded application it will 'power off' 3 cores and boost the clock speed of a single core, in this case probably to 2.8GHZ or 3.0Ghz


Also, nice to see Apple going with AMD/Ati graphics. I steer clear of all nvidia based Macs as they are the weakest component. I have had 3 iMacs with nvidia all fail due to a blown gpu card. The Ati iMacs have all been bulletproof. Having the option to switch to discreet graphics is good for an extra performance boost.
post #12 of 60
It also seems a bit weird that they added an ATI GPU when the integrated one in the Intel Sandy Bridge is perfect for the mobile space, e.g. enough if your demands for graphics are ordinary.
post #13 of 60
I'm really looking forward to getting the official word on the MBP's. I really want to get one to upgrade. Going to suck if this is only a minor update and the major one will be in Sept. I wont be able to wait.......!! I'm in Australia, and I really want to stay up!!
post #14 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMinded View Post

If Thunderbolt and Mini DisplayPort use the same port will the screens be updates as well then?

Why? LightPeak makes old ports forward compatible. We JUST had new displays.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #15 of 60
What? Radeon HD 6490M? That's a step backward from the GT 330M in the current ones. Apple doesn't do steps backward in the models with Dedi GPUs. Sideways, yes. Forward, yes. But going back to something about on par with the 9600M GT? Doesn't make any sense.
PC Gamer, Musician, Mac Geek. | Jerion.us
Reply
PC Gamer, Musician, Mac Geek. | Jerion.us
Reply
post #16 of 60
No rumored SSD OS Drive
Still a crap GPU with a crap amount of memory Wake up Apple, people want good graphics power in their "Pro" machines.
post #17 of 60
The 17" looks like a decent update, provided that one can get it without the Superdrive. ODDs are useless to me.
post #18 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmicronTurtle View Post

No rumored SSD OS Drive
Still a crap GPU with a crap amount of memory Wake up Apple, people want good graphics power in their "Pro" machines.

I agree. The only thing holding me back to get a mac is their graphic card.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. K View Post

What? Radeon HD 6490M? That's a step backward from the GT 330M in the current ones. Apple doesn't do steps backward in the models with Dedi GPUs. Sideways, yes. Forward, yes. But going back to something about on par with the 9600M GT? Doesn't make any sense.

I was planning to buy the new 13 inch but I do not want just intel integrated graphics... disappointed that it does not have nvidia chip in it.

Would it make any difference if I used 13 inch for coding in SDK for iphone apps?
post #19 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeOS View Post

It also seems a bit weird that they added an ATI GPU when the integrated one in the Intel Sandy Bridge is perfect for the mobile space, e.g. enough if your demands for graphics are ordinary.

That't not 'weird' at all, its expected. Haven't you seen the non-stop bitching here, when it was revealed that the base 13' model wouldn't have discreet graphics? Yeah. This is the top of the line, quad core i7. It deserves decent graphics.
post #20 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmicronTurtle View Post

Wake up Apple, people want good graphics power in their "Pro" machines.

When you wake up and see that millions of people don't give a crap and are buying them anyway.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #21 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeOS View Post

Well, it seems the be an Apple-SKU since the new mobile i7 quad-core chips should start at 2,2 Ghz, not 2.0:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3876/i...bridge-part-ii

AFAIK no MacBook Pro ever handled a 45W CPU as these run too hot (and drain the battery too quickly).
35W had always been the maximum.

According to above link these new quad-core i7 CPUs are all rated at 45W.


Did Apple find a better way of cooling these things?
Or are the CPUs throttled down so they can stay within 35-40W?
post #22 of 60
PLEEEASSSSSSEEEEEE get rid of that 8x superdrive. it's complete garbage. esp. if it's not gonna support blu-ray.
post #23 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post

AFAIK no MacBook Pro ever handled a 45W CPU as these run too hot (and drain the battery too quickly).
35W had always been the maximum.

According to above link these new quad-core i7 CPUs are all rated at 45W.


Did Apple find a better way of cooling these things?
Or are the CPUs throttled down so they can stay within 35-40W?

Could be throttled down by Apple itself, or a special bin requested by Apple from Intel (Thus my question about an Apple_SKU).

I would mind a faster one myself and live with the increased power draw (and fan noise), but we'll see whether that options comes to fruition. Probably not.
post #24 of 60
These are indeed quite incremental updates. I think the technology is out there to have done better, but there are some things to like and I wonder what the BTO options are.
post #25 of 60
People, this is without a doubt the baseline 15" model. I am sure that there are upgrades available in terms of CPU and graphics (better be).
post #26 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

2.0 GHz base speed on the processor is pathetic even disgusting

Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Typical response from the uneducated. Clock speed is no longer a clear indicator of performance and is only a small part of the package itself

While yes, clock speed is no longer a good indicator, 2 GHz is pretty weak. There are still quite a few apps that don't take good advantage of multiple cores. And there are diminishing returns for adding cores. Going from one to two cores may almost double performance, but four cores won't quadruple performance, not even close.

I'm not saying 2 GHz won't happen, but I'll be very curious to see the performance numbers and how Apple markets it.
post #27 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Why? LightPeak makes old ports forward compatible. We JUST had new displays.

New displays would be required if one wants to use the Thunderbolt port AND has a display hooked up. Otherwise, the optical connections (if they truly are optical) are inaccessible.
post #28 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

While yes, clock speed is no longer a good indicator, 2 GHz is pretty weak. There are still quite a few apps that don't take good advantage of multiple cores. And there are diminishing returns for adding cores. Going from one to two cores may almost double performance, but four cores won't quadruple performance, not even close.

I'm not saying 2 GHz won't happen, but I'll be very curious to see the performance numbers and how Apple markets it.

I am good with the numbers as long as it will step up. No reason for the chip to be a space heater when I am thinking. My thought is that this is probably why computers take over the world, they are board waiting for us to press a key, any key.
post #29 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

While yes, clock speed is no longer a good indicator, 2 GHz is pretty weak. There are still quite a few apps that don't take good advantage of multiple cores. And there are diminishing returns for adding cores. Going from one to two cores may almost double performance, but four cores won't quadruple performance, not even close.it.

Which is why Intel added Turbo Boost to their multi-core CPU's, as stated elsewhere. If the CPU thinks you are not running enough at the same time to warrant using all cores, it simply shuts them down and increases the frequency of the other ones, to get the best of both worlds: multi-core performance where possible, single-threaded performance otherwise. It's been in the i series for over a year.
post #30 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Typical response from the uneducated. Clock speed is no longer a clear indicator of performance and is only a small part of the package itself.

Clock speed is a clear indicator of performance within a family of processors. The problem is we have a new architecture that does much better based on instructions executed per clock and then Apple pisses all that away by underclocking the processor. That clearly sucks.
Quote:
The multi cores work together at the base 2.0Ghz speed but if you are running a non multi-threaded application it will 'power off' 3 cores and boost the clock speed of a single core, in this case probably to 2.8GHZ or 3.0Ghz

Do you think that I didn't know this when I wrote my comments? Beyound that "probably" isn't a very firm position to take, until we see exactly how Apple has clocked the machine and set up the firmware we don't know what the boost clock will be.

The big problem is the massive roll back in performance if you make use of all those cores.
Quote:

Also, nice to see Apple going with AMD/Ati graphics. I steer clear of all nvidia based Macs as they are the weakest component. I have had 3 iMacs with nvidia all fail due to a blown gpu card. The Ati iMacs have all been bulletproof. Having the option to switch to discreet graphics is good for an extra performance boost.

I have no specific problem with AMD GPUs and did not focus on that component. For my needs the rumored GPU is fine but for many it is pretty underwhelming for many others.
post #31 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

2.0 GHz base speed on the processor is pathetic even disgusting, i really don't care how much better the CPU is performance wise on a per cycle basis either.

2.0ghz quad core on a mobile platform is pathetic?
post #32 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by TailsToo View Post

Nooo!!!!! 1680x1050 should be standard! I sure hope this is the low end model, or I'm waiting for the next rev!

These are poor updates, all the attention has been on iPhone and iPad. Poor neglected Mac division... Intel must have made Apple offers they couldn't refuse to keep Apple buying enough x86 stuff. These updates are all just Intel, Intel, Intel. I bet you the GPU is nothing much to sneeze at. 256mb RAM? What a F*** joke. 5400rpm drives? 1440x900? What is this, 2005?
post #33 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeltsBear View Post

2.0ghz quad core on a mobile platform is pathetic?

The CPU is no doubt impressive. But we all know nowadays for most tasks it's not all about the CPU. The fact that nothing else has changed much means basically in the last six months Intel has lobbied hard and furious to shove everything Intel up Apple as much as possible, and Apple took the bait.

And so much for gaming on the Mac, in one or two revisions iPad will have better gaming graphics than this "new" MBP 13" with Intel's BundleGate RubbishGPUs.
post #34 of 60
FACETIME available in the MAC App Store for .99 !!!!!

It just appeared today!
post #35 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

2.0 GHz base speed on the processor is pathetic even disgusting,

It's a quad-core CPU that has a turbo function for when fewer cores are in use.

2.0GHz is a BASE clock. This chip can go up to 2.9GHz.

In addition the graphics can Turbo from 650MHz to 1100MHz (2630QM) or even 1200MHz (2635QM).

Stop and think before spouting off, eh?
post #36 of 60
It looks like, pictured above, that the 17" has an AMD 6750 with 1gb. That is pretty legit, isn't it?
post #37 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by adkinsadam1 View Post

People, this is without a doubt the baseline 15" model. I am sure that there are upgrades available in terms of CPU and graphics (better be).

Base is an apt word. How long has the base model been at 256mb VRAM? 3 years now?
post #38 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. K View Post

What? Radeon HD 6490M? That's a step backward from the GT 330M in the current ones. Apple doesn't do steps backward in the models with Dedi GPUs. Sideways, yes. Forward, yes. But going back to something about on par with the 9600M GT? Doesn't make any sense.

Yeah, it's 160 shaders - a new design (Caicos). It's probably there for OpenCL, it's probably not even twice as fast as the HD3000. Strange choice.
post #39 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by adkinsadam1 View Post

It looks like, pictured above, that the 17" has an AMD 6750 with 1gb. That is pretty legit, isn't it?

Sure, it is a great laptop with nice VRAM, excellent GPU. For a price.
post #40 of 60
It looks like the future of MacBooks is further away than we think. Steve, your genius will never be realised enough. Never.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Leaked photo shows 15" MacBook Pro with i7 CPU and AMD graphics