I'm not sure that the benefits of big iron are tangible to most people. There are a lot of improvements over last year's models, and the improvements are stuff that people can relate to.
If performance is ever asked about, the salesperson can assure the buyer that the new MBPs are amazingly fast, with much improved speed over last year's stuff.
VRAM is not important to most people. So long as it can handle a decent resolution with lots of colors and few artifacts, and so long as the sturrering is minimal while watching DVDs, it is plenty good enough.
A real world example where the limited VRAM hinders usability ? Adobe Photoshop:
That dialog is from a three years old MacBook Pro that has 256 MB VRAM, just like some of the just released 15" models.
I guess what ticks me off, is that these new MBPs are neither cutting edge and futureproof, nor financially reasonable. I mean, dropping $2200 on a laptop without things like 1GB+ VRAM, HDMI, Blueray (not even convinced I'd use it, but still), would be worth it if I thought this overprice machine would last me 5 years, but it clearly won't, given my usage patterns. The Photoshop example given above is but one example. No USB3. No 1080P. No eSATA.
I'm thinking Hackintosh.
PS If Apple actually came up with teir 'own' solution to graphics switching, why not use Radeon 5xxx cards, which pound the Nvidia 3xx series? Again, future-proofing for OpenGL 4, with hardware tessellation. I know a lot of 3D content creators who would appreciate that. It looks to me like the MBPs have Optimus with some slight Apple tweak.
That seems a bit higher specced than the best 15 inch MBP?
It's better spec'd. You also get an eSATA port and Expresscard 34 port as well.
The i7-820QM vs i7-620M is somewhat of a wash. The i7-820QM is obviously a little faster but the 45W TDP contributes to the 3 hour battery life vs 9 hour battery life. The 1GB of VRAM is a nice and of course blu-ray.
It's also 6.9 lbs vs 5.6 lbs for the 15" MBP. It's more comparable against the 17" MBP weight and size wise.
The key (ignoring the OSX vs Win7 debate) is that Apple appears to have gone for battery life. Which they have to do since you can't swap batteries on the go.
If you believe equally the Sony claims of 4.5 hours on the large battery and the Apple claims of 9 hours on the MBP you need to tack on another $100 for the large battery to get 4.5 hours on the Sony and then another $249.99 for another large battery pack. You forgot the backlit keyboard for another $25.
Now you're back in MBP pricing territory and you're up to 8 lbs of weight.
Personally I don't believe either the 4.5 hour Sony claim or the 8-9 hour Apple claim for the i7s. Maybe I'll believe 8-9 hours for the i5 MBPs.
The power spec I DO believe on the Sony is the estimated 1 hour of DVD playback...you can't even get through a movie on the standard battery. As a desktop replacement I'd lean toward the Sony. For mobility I'd choose the MBP without hesitation.
My sentiment exactly. I'm a recent switcher from the Vista years. I hate what microshaft has done to their OS, so I thought I should give Macs a try. My 2 yr old (almost) alu iMac & MBpro were trully cutting edge at the time.
2 years down the line, I love OSX but I find that the hardware is not really up to scratch, not for the price tag anyway (incidentally my 2 fav OSes is w95 for its utter customizability & OSX for being so friggin smooth). It may have to do with being in the UK, as I find the US prices very very competitive whereas I think the extra 20% of the UK pricetages hurts a lot.
I should mention that I am a person that stands by the "you get what you pay for" and I think that everyone would agree that macs are the most competently engineered products out there. Its just that perhaps for the 1st time PC makers are catching up with regards to build quality. I suppose that windows 7 actually being a good and task-efficient OS helps also. Although definately not OSX sleek, at least it does not get bogged down after 2 months use like previous M$ OSes.
I do understand and agree however with having the 13" one with a c2d and a better graphics chip, as the intel stuff is horrid, on a PC or a Mac. You definately DO NOT want any intel chip for graphics, they are trully way below anything NVIDIA & ATI offers.
Now I saw a friend's Dell Hackintosh and I was thoroughly impressed by its fantastic performance. I was also impressed by the power management of OSX on it. Its easy to attribute low power & speed to apple hardware but I think that a lot of it comes down to software. My iMac makes so much more noise when running w7!
Now that the Mini Display Port output includes audio, this argument is dead. You just need a mini display port to HDMI cable.
hmmm, someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the display ports now have audio, but I can't find any reference to this on Apple's site.
Regardless, the vast majority of devices with HDMI inputs also have optical digital audio inputs, so you can use a Mini Display Port to HDMI cable and an optical digital audio cable.
Now that the Mini Display Port output includes audio, this argument is dead. You just need a Mini Display Port to HDMI cable.
This is an interesting question. A couple of possibilities:
1.) Apple agreed to use Nvidia across the whole product line in exchange for Nvidia developing the custom integrated graphics for the 13" MBP.
2.) Whilst Apple are not using Optimus software, there's something in the Nvidia hardware that makes dynamic switching a lot easier, or even possible.
Agreed. Apple and Nvidia have worked together in the past and it's evident here as well. The 320M part is one example and I'm sure they gave Apple a lot of guidance on doing their own implementation of dynamic GPU switching.
I'm a bit confused as to the differences between the i5 and i7 processors included in the new MBPs?
My understanding was that previously, both i5 and i7 processors were Turbo Boost able quad-core CPUs, with the i7 also including Hyper Threading and DDR3. Or is the DDR3 an i9 feature?
But now it seems as though neither the i5 or i7 are quad-core, and both include HT, but neither include DDR3?
So what's the difference between the i5 and i7 now that both support Hyper Threading?
But now it seems as though neither the i5 or i7 are quad-core, and both include HT, but neither include DDR3?
What makes you think they don't support DDR3? All Apple's new MacBook Pros use DDR3 RAM (as does the previous generation).
As to your other confusions, I think you may be mixing up the portable and desktop versions, with extra misunderstanding sprinkled on top. I suggest perusing wikipedia and letting us know what you find out.
I could be wrong, but the upgraded Mac Mini looks identical to the upgraded 13" MBP with the exception of the graphics chip. Is that chip really worth $300 (assuming that I spent $400 on a keyboard, mouse and monitor).
I'm a bit confused as to the differences between the i5 and i7 processors included in the new MBPs?
My understanding was that previously, both i5 and i7 processors were Turbo Boost able quad-core CPUs, with the i7 also including Hyper Threading and DDR3. Or is the DDR3 an i9 feature?
But now it seems as though neither the i5 or i7 are quad-core, and both include HT, but neither include DDR3?
So what's the difference between the i5 and i7 now that both support Hyper Threading?
L3 cache is the only thing I can think of right now i7 is 4MB and i5 is 3MB
How fast and powerful is NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M with 512MB over NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M with 256MB. Is worth the money to get the 512 MB.?
Plus is the i7 worth the seemingly marginal CPU speed increase, but larger battery drain compared to the i5? The benchmarks on PC laptops with these two processors say no: it's not worth it.
Hopefully someone will benchmark the two versions of the MBP soon - I'm ready to buy.
Plus is the i7 worth the seemingly marginal CPU speed increase, but larger battery drain compared to the i5? The benchmarks on PC laptops with these two processors say no: it's not worth it.
Hopefully someone will benchmark the two versions of the MBP soon - I'm ready to buy.
I want more battery life, so I may buy the the I5, 2.4 and change the hard drive with a SSD 128GB...
What makes you think they don't support DDR3? All Apple's new MacBook Pros use DDR3 RAM (as does the previous generation).
As to your other confusions, I think you may be mixing up the portable and desktop versions, with extra misunderstanding sprinkled on top. I suggest perusing wikipedia and letting us know what you find out.
Sorry ? I'm mixing up DDR3 (of course they all support that) with triple channel memory.
D'oh!
I seem to remember the original desktop differentiations being:
Comments
I'm not sure that the benefits of big iron are tangible to most people. There are a lot of improvements over last year's models, and the improvements are stuff that people can relate to.
If performance is ever asked about, the salesperson can assure the buyer that the new MBPs are amazingly fast, with much improved speed over last year's stuff.
VRAM is not important to most people. So long as it can handle a decent resolution with lots of colors and few artifacts, and so long as the sturrering is minimal while watching DVDs, it is plenty good enough.
A real world example where the limited VRAM hinders usability ? Adobe Photoshop:
That dialog is from a three years old MacBook Pro that has 256 MB VRAM, just like some of the just released 15" models.
I'm thinking Hackintosh.
PS If Apple actually came up with teir 'own' solution to graphics switching, why not use Radeon 5xxx cards, which pound the Nvidia 3xx series? Again, future-proofing for OpenGL 4, with hardware tessellation. I know a lot of 3D content creators who would appreciate that. It looks to me like the MBPs have Optimus with some slight Apple tweak.
As I want to buy a MBP soon, I also did some shopping around and saw the SOny F series. I was able to kit it out with teh folloiwng:
Intel® Core™ i7-820QM processor (1.73GHz) with Turbo Boost up to 3.06GHz
500GB Hard Disk Drive (7200rpm)
6GB (4GBx1 + 2GBx1) DDR3-SDRAM-1333
Blu-ray Disc™ player (+CD/DVD burner)
16.4" VAIO Premium Display (1920x1080) with NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 330M GPU (1GB VRAM)
For $1844.90
That seems a bit higher specced than the best 15 inch MBP?
It's better spec'd. You also get an eSATA port and Expresscard 34 port as well.
The i7-820QM vs i7-620M is somewhat of a wash. The i7-820QM is obviously a little faster but the 45W TDP contributes to the 3 hour battery life vs 9 hour battery life. The 1GB of VRAM is a nice and of course blu-ray.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...st.2436.0.html
It's also 6.9 lbs vs 5.6 lbs for the 15" MBP. It's more comparable against the 17" MBP weight and size wise.
The key (ignoring the OSX vs Win7 debate) is that Apple appears to have gone for battery life. Which they have to do since you can't swap batteries on the go.
If you believe equally the Sony claims of 4.5 hours on the large battery and the Apple claims of 9 hours on the MBP you need to tack on another $100 for the large battery to get 4.5 hours on the Sony and then another $249.99 for another large battery pack. You forgot the backlit keyboard for another $25.
Now you're back in MBP pricing territory and you're up to 8 lbs of weight.
Personally I don't believe either the 4.5 hour Sony claim or the 8-9 hour Apple claim for the i7s. Maybe I'll believe 8-9 hours for the i5 MBPs.
The power spec I DO believe on the Sony is the estimated 1 hour of DVD playback...you can't even get through a movie on the standard battery. As a desktop replacement I'd lean toward the Sony. For mobility I'd choose the MBP without hesitation.
It all depends on your needs.
I'm thinking Hackintosh.
My sentiment exactly. I'm a recent switcher from the Vista years. I hate what microshaft has done to their OS, so I thought I should give Macs a try. My 2 yr old (almost) alu iMac & MBpro were trully cutting edge at the time.
2 years down the line, I love OSX but I find that the hardware is not really up to scratch, not for the price tag anyway (incidentally my 2 fav OSes is w95 for its utter customizability & OSX for being so friggin smooth). It may have to do with being in the UK, as I find the US prices very very competitive whereas I think the extra 20% of the UK pricetages hurts a lot.
I should mention that I am a person that stands by the "you get what you pay for" and I think that everyone would agree that macs are the most competently engineered products out there. Its just that perhaps for the 1st time PC makers are catching up with regards to build quality. I suppose that windows 7 actually being a good and task-efficient OS helps also. Although definately not OSX sleek, at least it does not get bogged down after 2 months use like previous M$ OSes.
I do understand and agree however with having the 13" one with a c2d and a better graphics chip, as the intel stuff is horrid, on a PC or a Mac. You definately DO NOT want any intel chip for graphics, they are trully way below anything NVIDIA & ATI offers.
Now I saw a friend's Dell Hackintosh and I was thoroughly impressed by its fantastic performance. I was also impressed by the power management of OSX on it. Its easy to attribute low power & speed to apple hardware but I think that a lot of it comes down to software. My iMac makes so much more noise when running w7!
HDMI
Now that the Mini Display Port output includes audio, this argument is dead. You just need a Mini Display Port to HDMI cable.
PS If Apple actually came up with teir 'own' solution to graphics switching, why not use Radeon 5xxx cards
This is an interesting question. A couple of possibilities:
1.) Apple agreed to use Nvidia across the whole product line in exchange for Nvidia developing the custom integrated graphics for the 13" MBP.
2.) Whilst Apple are not using Optimus software, there's something in the Nvidia hardware that makes dynamic switching a lot easier, or even possible.
Apple seems to be going dongle-crazy too, but that is another thread topic entirely.
(Mr. H: not aimed at you, just casting my "WTF is with Dongles and Apple" to the wind)
Now that the Mini Display Port output includes audio, this argument is dead. You just need a mini display port to HDMI cable.
hmmm, someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the display ports now have audio, but I can't find any reference to this on Apple's site.
Regardless, the vast majority of devices with HDMI inputs also have optical digital audio inputs, so you can use a Mini Display Port to HDMI cable and an optical digital audio cable.
What Japanese flat screen TVs have Displayport? What Projectors have displayport?
Apple seems to be going dongle-crazy too, but that is another thread topic entirely.
(Mr. H: not aimed at you, just casting my "WTF is with Dongles and Apple" to the wind)
Dongles not required, you can get Mini Display Port to HDMI cables and Mini Display Port to DVI cables.
Now that the Mini Display Port output includes audio, this argument is dead. You just need a Mini Display Port to HDMI cable.
This is an interesting question. A couple of possibilities:
1.) Apple agreed to use Nvidia across the whole product line in exchange for Nvidia developing the custom integrated graphics for the 13" MBP.
2.) Whilst Apple are not using Optimus software, there's something in the Nvidia hardware that makes dynamic switching a lot easier, or even possible.
Agreed. Apple and Nvidia have worked together in the past and it's evident here as well. The 320M part is one example and I'm sure they gave Apple a lot of guidance on doing their own implementation of dynamic GPU switching.
My understanding was that previously, both i5 and i7 processors were Turbo Boost able quad-core CPUs, with the i7 also including Hyper Threading and DDR3. Or is the DDR3 an i9 feature?
But now it seems as though neither the i5 or i7 are quad-core, and both include HT, but neither include DDR3?
So what's the difference between the i5 and i7 now that both support Hyper Threading?
Even if they did, does FileVault take advantage of hardware acceleration?
I have no idea. It's just a future-proof kind of thing to think about for people who buy laptops infrequently.
Dual core Core i7for $2,200? No thanks. Can get quad core Core i7 and a better gpu for 1,000 less
Wah!
"Apple didn't use the processors that drain batteries in 2 seconds while blasting your nuts into sterility!
But now it seems as though neither the i5 or i7 are quad-core, and both include HT, but neither include DDR3?
What makes you think they don't support DDR3? All Apple's new MacBook Pros use DDR3 RAM (as does the previous generation).
As to your other confusions, I think you may be mixing up the portable and desktop versions, with extra misunderstanding sprinkled on top. I suggest perusing wikipedia and letting us know what you find out.
I'm a bit confused as to the differences between the i5 and i7 processors included in the new MBPs?
My understanding was that previously, both i5 and i7 processors were Turbo Boost able quad-core CPUs, with the i7 also including Hyper Threading and DDR3. Or is the DDR3 an i9 feature?
But now it seems as though neither the i5 or i7 are quad-core, and both include HT, but neither include DDR3?
So what's the difference between the i5 and i7 now that both support Hyper Threading?
L3 cache is the only thing I can think of right now i7 is 4MB and i5 is 3MB
How fast and powerful is NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M with 512MB over NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M with 256MB. Is worth the money to get the 512 MB.?
Plus is the i7 worth the seemingly marginal CPU speed increase, but larger battery drain compared to the i5? The benchmarks on PC laptops with these two processors say no: it's not worth it.
Hopefully someone will benchmark the two versions of the MBP soon - I'm ready to buy.
Plus is the i7 worth the seemingly marginal CPU speed increase, but larger battery drain compared to the i5? The benchmarks on PC laptops with these two processors say no: it's not worth it.
Hopefully someone will benchmark the two versions of the MBP soon - I'm ready to buy.
I want more battery life, so I may buy the the I5, 2.4 and change the hard drive with a SSD 128GB...
What makes you think they don't support DDR3? All Apple's new MacBook Pros use DDR3 RAM (as does the previous generation).
As to your other confusions, I think you may be mixing up the portable and desktop versions, with extra misunderstanding sprinkled on top. I suggest perusing wikipedia and letting us know what you find out.
Sorry ? I'm mixing up DDR3 (of course they all support that) with triple channel memory.
D'oh!
I seem to remember the original desktop differentiations being:
i5 - Quad-core/Turbo Boost/No Hyper Threading/No triple channel memory (iMac)
i7 - Quad-core/Turbo Boost/Hyper Threading/No triple channel memory (iMac)
i9 - Quad-core/Turbo Boost/Hyper Threading/Triple channel memory (Mac Pro)
But the mobile counterparts seem to have really blurred the lines? I'm a bit confused as to what i7 brings to the party, which i5 hasn't already?
L3 cache is the only thing I can think of right now i7 is 4MB and i5 is 3MB
Yeah ? if I'm reading it properly there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference between the i5 and i7 (unlike the desktop equivalents)?