how is this an update. because the bus speed is improved?
No, the entire architecture changed. Clock speed hasn't been really relevant since the Pentium III. The core iX chips are much more efficient -- per clock -- than the C2Ds. However, as I posted earlier; those GPUs blow. I was holding my breath and money for this upgrade, but with such an underpowered GPU, I wonder if it's worth it. (*It's a fine GPU for most things, but I do GPU programming (CUDA/OpenCL) for my research as a grad student, and these GPUs are just weak with respect to Nvidia's latest and greatest).
Battery life caught my eye on 13 in. Did the 13 in have backlit k/b before? These are nice things but not enough of an increment to persuade me to ditch my rev a macbook.
So...I've got a 2.2 ghz Core 2 Duo 15" Macbook Pro that's about to come off AppleCare in June. I want to replace it with a 13"er, but...
Will I realistically see much performance increase between the new 13" macbook pro at 2.4 ghz and the 2007 Core 2 Duo @ 2.2 ghz? The better battery, increased RAM capacity, build quality and portability are nice, but how do the computery guts compare? I do a lot of architecture/engineering stuff (AutoCAD and ArcGIS in Parallels, Sketchup, Photoshop, etc) so I need a machine with decent cajones (though 3D performance is less important). I dunno if it makes sense to wait much longer given the increased resale value of the old machine with AppleCare.
I do _not_ want another 15" laptop, though. Too big for someone who commutes on foot every day.
No, the entire architecture changed. Clock speed hasn't been really relevant since the Pentium III. The core iX chips are much more efficient -- per clock -- than the C2Ds. However, as I posted earlier; those GPUs blow. I was holding my breath and money for this upgrade, but with such an underpowered GPU, I wonder if it's worth it. (*It's a fine GPU for most things, but I do GPU programming (CUDA/OpenCL) for my research as a grad student, and these GPUs are just weak with respect to Nvidia's latest and greatest).
well, according to Apples test, my MBP 17" 2.8 dual core is only slightly slower than the latest and greatest..... and i am willing to bet, in real life, they are identical.
Comments
i5 dual core @ 2.53... that is very odd.
my 17" MBP has a dual core 2.8....
how is this an update. because the bus speed is improved?
No, the entire architecture changed. Clock speed hasn't been really relevant since the Pentium III. The core iX chips are much more efficient -- per clock -- than the C2Ds. However, as I posted earlier; those GPUs blow. I was holding my breath and money for this upgrade, but with such an underpowered GPU, I wonder if it's worth it. (*It's a fine GPU for most things, but I do GPU programming (CUDA/OpenCL) for my research as a grad student, and these GPUs are just weak with respect to Nvidia's latest and greatest).
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/
Will I realistically see much performance increase between the new 13" macbook pro at 2.4 ghz and the 2007 Core 2 Duo @ 2.2 ghz? The better battery, increased RAM capacity, build quality and portability are nice, but how do the computery guts compare? I do a lot of architecture/engineering stuff (AutoCAD and ArcGIS in Parallels, Sketchup, Photoshop, etc) so I need a machine with decent cajones (though 3D performance is less important). I dunno if it makes sense to wait much longer given the increased resale value of the old machine with AppleCare.
I do _not_ want another 15" laptop, though. Too big for someone who commutes on foot every day.
It was a big battery update.
I'm sure Steve would tell me just to plug it in if I thought capacity wasn't sufficient. I am heeding his advice and saving 1500 bucks in the process.
No, the entire architecture changed. Clock speed hasn't been really relevant since the Pentium III. The core iX chips are much more efficient -- per clock -- than the C2Ds. However, as I posted earlier; those GPUs blow. I was holding my breath and money for this upgrade, but with such an underpowered GPU, I wonder if it's worth it. (*It's a fine GPU for most things, but I do GPU programming (CUDA/OpenCL) for my research as a grad student, and these GPUs are just weak with respect to Nvidia's latest and greatest).
well, according to Apples test, my MBP 17" 2.8 dual core is only slightly slower than the latest and greatest..... and i am willing to bet, in real life, they are identical.
this is not a refresh. it is an insult.
Why? Just enjoy them. They can do anything you'd want them to do and do it reasonably well, all while running OS X.
SOFTWARE is the whole point, not really the hardware specs. Been this way for a long time now.
Are you really surprised?
So...I've got a 2.2 ghz Core 2 Duo 15" Macbook Pro that's about to come off AppleCare in June. I want to replace it with a 13"er, but...
Will I realistically see much performance increase between the new 13" macbook pro at 2.4 ghz and the 2007 Core 2 Duo @ 2.2 ghz? Anyone?
Not likely.
Why? Just enjoy them. They can do anything you'd want them to do and do it reasonably well, all while running OS X.
SOFTWARE is the whole point, not really the hardware specs. Been this way for a long time now.
Are you really surprised?
no. its a typical Apple update.
yep, they did. my MBP has 3....
Btw, 512B is TINY!!!! I used up my 1TB within a couple of months downloading music alone.
All laptops should come with 1TB stock.
Other than the battery life improvements on the 13", nothing really to see here. I'm sticking with my June '09 13" MBP.
wow, did they get rid of one of the USB ports???
yep, they did. my MBP has 3....
For awhile now. My June 09 15" only has two.
Gutted that the 13" wont get any i3/i5 treatment... I've been waiting since January
There is no compelling reason that I can see to get a 13" MBP over a 13" MB.
I was also hoping they would take the opportunity of having the store down to put up foreign iPad pricing.