Apple updates MacBook Pro line with next-gen CPU, GPU & Thunderbolt I/O - Page 3

This has been explained several times in several threads. Prior to the new MBA, Apple was not listing a very rigorous battery test time result. They have a more real world case involving the internet and wi-fi being used now. The old 13" 10 hr time was (I believe) either straight idle or just simple word processing. The only people who think it lost time are the ones who don't pay attention. The new processor is 10w higher TDP and the new vcard in the 15 and 17 is 2w higher, so considering they added 35% to their previous TDP and are still pulling 7 hrs on net+wi-fi, I think that's pretty darn good. An improvement even possibly.

As a side note, although I don't consider the 13" MBP a bad upgrade, it is still ridiculous when you compare it to the $1199 that is yet to be upgraded. Sure, it is a desktop, but the difference is so big it is ridiculous. For $1199 you get

A slightly faster CPU
A MUCH better, dedicated GPU (like, literally almost four times better)
the same RAM speed
a TB 7200rpm HD
a 21.5 IPS LED screen
wireless keyboard and magic mouse
better speakers (obviously)

like really. I have one in my lap and I'm happy but come on. I love th graphics in the 15 and 17 inch with brand new graphics cards but why does the 15 have a 256mb graphics card? also, the pro has less battery. I got the 13 inch and it has 88% with 6:57 remaining. strange. Other than that, applications boot faster than on the macbook air 13 inch with 4 gb ram and it weighs a ton. Glad I have the air and my old man has this pro. One more thing, could someone reply to this and tell me where I click to post a comment without having to reply to the main article and selete it?

well apple's CPU is way faster (Sandy vs new I cores (i think, please corrects :S) but also alienware is a rip off...

THINKPAD W510 (3369 before discount, 2439 after)
2.0 (old I7, 8mb cache)
15'6 270nit 95% gamut display (beats 95%+ of other laptop screens, including those on the MBP's)
8GB @ 1067 (8 more for 320, 4 DIMMS)
fingerprint reader
500 GB @ 7200
FX880M 1GB DDR3 (workstation specialized)

IDEAPAD Y560d (1599 before discount, 1499 after)
1.73 (old I7, 6mb cache)
HB 5730 (should beat 6750)
6gB @ 1333
500 GB @ 7200
__________________________________________________ _________

i feel like this update make pro machine much stronger.... excluding the 13'.... might as well discontinue that. at this point- might as well discontinue that line... a lot more speed and storage that the air 13' but with its GPU, you can't really do super intense things anyway, the Air's CPU should be enough.... also, this wierd thing called external HARD DRIVES (WHAT!!!!!?????)

Also i think thunderbolt is gonna be epic.... wish i could afford one of those...

I don't think there's any other way they could have done this. I like this trait they have of deciding something isn't accurate and then rectifying it, no matter if it means damaging their marketing. What I don't like is when they hide graphics downgrades behind their 3x faster marketing that only refers to the $2200 Macbook Pro while every other model is actually slower than the previous generation equivalent.


At least it'll render graphics better than the 13" MBP.


How would you say it compares to this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834115987

It's a Chicken and egg scenario and someone needs to take the first step. besides, since it's the same port as mini-displayport and it's all backed by intel, there's no gamble whatsoever. USB 3.0 seemed like a good idea until Light Peak came out, which just blows it out of the water in all respects.
Also, it seems like there will be adapters to make just about anything Thunderbolt capable so the devices ARE out there, they just need an adapter...

Thats gotta be my vote for brain dead quote of the day.

No, it is not. Not if you actually need to do any significant amount of typing and editing.

For portable point-click-scan, sure -- absolutely even.

and since Apple is booking a special media event, they certainly want public attention focused onto the iPad -- the market for it is blooming, thus lots of potential new cash inbound.

But iPad is not for heavy duty computing use.
To wit, try imagining writing your dissertation on an iPad...
or laying out full documents, or editing multi-media, or...

Anyway, the realm of computing needs is certainly large enough to encompass workstations, laptops, ultra-lights and iPads. There will be plenty of folks needing each...

Can somebody in the know give me an idea of how the Intel HD integrated graphics in the new Pro's compares to the nVidia 320M?

I'm interested in either the low end 13" MBP or the 13" MBA. Obviously the MBP has better CPU, more RAM and what have you, but I don't really know how the two graphics solutions stack up. Some insight would be helpful.

The other issue is the 5400rpm hdd in the MBP. The MBA really seems to fly with the SSD and I suspect if I went for the MBP i'd want to upgrade to an SSD.

Wrong. You're not buying an Apple laptop. Virtually every other manufacturer out there offers higher end graphics than the middling options Apple gives you. Lenovo, for instance, will gladly take your money and give you a workstation class Thinkpad with certified OpenGL graphics (a decidedly pro feature) and faster processors for a similar price.

The 320M card is much more superior than the Intel HD Int.Graphics. better colors and more vivid especially with various games.The SSD on MBA not that faster than the 5400 HD. Good Luck mf

For those who say Apple will never put USB3 on, remember that Ivy Bridge has native USB3 support next year. As soon as Intel supports it, so will they. Next year I'm sure we will see laptops with 2 or 3 USB3 ports and at least a pair of Thunderbolts

........

Or laptops with MagSafe, five Thunderbolt, and audio in/out.

There's no reason to have USB 3 at all given Thunderbolt's existence.

Adapters is the answer to any question you may have regarding the above sentence. I in no way say that it's the best solution, I'm saying that it is the solution.

Not by much, according to the information I've found. It's about halfway between the old GeForce 9400M and the 320M in the last gen machine and "showed a performance level on par with the current entry level generations from NVIDIA (e.g. GeForce 310M) and AMD (HD 5450)."

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-H...0.37948.0.html

Except that there is no need to have Thunderbolt for a mouse. a couple of USB3 ports make perfect sense to support the lower speed peripherals. It also keeps the number of adapters you have to buy down. All TB and making people buy adapters for everything is certainly A solution, but I doubt it will be THE solution

Geekbench scores show that the new $1,199 model is slightly faster than the outgoing top-of-the-line MacBook Pro. This is probably the most significant performance upgrade Apple's laptops have ever seen, and people are writing it off as unimpressive and disappointing. Some people's kids.

The 15" MBPs are slower? WTF?


I understand how games on this generation *may* get a bit worse (I'm still praying for Turbo), but then again I'm a real black sheep: I like gaming (not serious FYI) but I love Macs. However most other 3D applications got improvements from last gen, even on the 13".

Go again to Apple's MBP performance page. There is a 13" tab, you know?

Modo 501
3D render
2.1x
Cinebench 11
Multiple-processor render
1.9x
Mathematica 8
MathematicaMark 8
1.9x
iPhoto 9.1.1
Common application tasks
1.7x
Aperture 3.1.1
Common application tasks
1.7x

EDIT: I am aware these are all thanks to the CPU. But that's kind of my point.


Please. That's almost like those people that say Mac Pros are the greatest rip off in history without even knowing about the server parts. You really are pissed off at the HD3000, aren't you?

Oh, and to whoever said the 5730 should beat the 6750: No effin way. This would go against AMD's numerology: the 6750 is a generation newer (6 vs 5), in the same mid-high classification (7 and 7) and is a superior model (50 vs 30)

The entry 15" Radeon 6490 only has 160 stream processors vs 480 in the 6750 bundled with the $2200 model. Notebookcheck lists it close to the 9600M GT from 2 generations back. This is lower than the 330M in the old model.

Why doesn't Apple give us graphs comparing the 6490 to the 330M?
Why doesn't Apple give us graphs comparing the HD 3000 with the 320M?

Because they are both downgrades. The only upgrade is the 330M to the 6750 at the $2200 price.


Your point is that the latest CPUs in the entry models are double the speed of 2.5 year old Core 2 Duos and the graphics chips are only slightly slower than last year's models.

You can look at it two ways. The way I look at it is that Apple has held back CPU upgrades that other manufacturers were using in 13" models so now they look great and they downgraded the graphics.

The whole idea with buying a new machine is that it is better than the old one, not worse in important areas like graphics.


The server parts in the entry MP don't cost a great deal more than the desktop parts. Apple used to sell the Mac Pro $500 cheaper when the parts cost the same.

FWIW I picked up a 2.4GHZ Core 2 Duo mid-2010 MBP 13" with 320M graphics for the equivalent of USD$150 less than what it was before (ie. $150 less than the latest baseline MBP 13"). I have my own 7200rpm drive, so I popped that in the new MacBook Pro (I had a MacBook Alu 2ghz before this).

Bottom line: Sweet for me, the latest MBPs can kiss my a**

I still love Apple though, don't doubt me on that. It's just that the Mac division has not been making the best choices IMO these past few years. But that leaves opportunities for the more discerning customer to capitalise on price drops on previous models, etc.

My dad is getting my Macbook Alu 2ghz and my mum his MacBook white (non unibody). My mum's iBook G4 just died a day before the announcements, can you believe it.

BTW The illuminated keyboard is the BOMB. Can't go back to anything (eg. Air?) without it!

I'm loving the MBP 13" colours compared to the much-maligned (and rightly so) MacBook screen. Though there is a bit of backlight "bleed" on the bottom edge. But overall the colours seem a bit desaturated, but really vivid "where it is supposed to be". Eg. a rose might not look as "red" overall compared with the previous MacBook but the "right" parts of the rose is really nice and deep red. That is, there seems to be better colour accuracy. I haven't even done any calibration yet. Not sure if I want to.

It just feels right having an Nvidia GPU (my nickname notwithstanding) inside that I know can handle the tasks thrown at it in the next few years).

The Intel BundleGate RubbishGPU I knew, but I suspected as much about the 6490. Thanks for confirming it.

That's how I feel when I see a game coming up with the NVidia message 'The Way It's Meant to be Played'. You just know you're not going to get graphics glitches or missing effects.

I wonder if Apple is going to update their FCS spec page:

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/specs/

"ATI or NVIDIA graphics processor (integrated Intel graphics processors not supported)"

It'll be interesting to see how they word it.


If they'd used the 6490 in the 13", it would've been fine too.

You got to give it to Nvidia, despite a lot of their troubles and challenges, they got the game developer relationship down solid. AMD would have done a lot better if not for bad rep for constant driver issues... which I personally have experienced with my ATI 4830 512MB. Sure, it's not a level playing field when games favour one card or another, but Nvidia did put in the effort there and it paid off for Nvidia-optimised games (and lets face it ATI came out alright for the most part). I was hella pissed when Batman Arkham Asylum only supported antialiasing on Nvidia but after a few updates it's all good. Picked it up recently on Steam for $7.50. Nice and smooth on my ATI with nice 4x antialiasing. Long game though! Just 60% through it and most games would have finished by now. That damn Joker...!


Interesting, indeed.


Anything discrete better than the 320M with 256MB would have been perfectly acceptable, and heck, how much would it have really cost? I guess they didn't want to mess with the internals too much, but they did fiddle with it for all that Thunderbolt stuff! I guess battery life would have taken a hit, but, this is Apple, they figure this stuff out. Again, at the end of the day, ATI low-end discrete GPUs are dirt, dirt cheap.

I bet you Valve must be fuming mad. All that effort into Mac gaming and Apple shafts them like this. The MacBook Pro 13" *is* Apple's best selling Mac, AFAIK. And it can't play anything but casual games for the most part.

That's what I thought when I hit 60% too. Unfortunately, they count the collectibles into the percentage so it finishes quite quickly after you reach this point.

When you finish, check out Mafia 2 if you haven't already. I think you'd enjoy it. There's a free demo on Steam. The visuals are pretty amazing.


I know, I thought with the 320M, that would be the end of the embarrassment but no, one more generation at least people have to suffer. There's a MW1 test on the 13" here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjBQgi4_J3c

Painful. With Valve coming out with Portal 2 soon and eventually one of the most anticipated games HL2:Ep3 with simultaneous Win/Mac releases, it's just the wrong decision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJNqAJvQW8I

So much work wasted, there's no way the HD3000 will render that.