Apple releases new MacBook Pros with Intel Core i7, i5 processors

1235719

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 366
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    The "GeForce 330M" does appear to be based upon the desktop GT330 or even the GT340. I suspect it has 96 processing cores and can do around 300 GFLOPS of computation.



    Sounds tasty!

    I should be able to kick some ass in Call of Duty 4 with one of these bastards!
  • Reply 82 of 366
    13" 4.5 lbs
  • Reply 83 of 366
    kbeatkbeat Posts: 47member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post


    Raw computing power is a very small market. Most folks just want a nice looking, light machine that lasts a long time while doing word processing at the coffee shop.



    I think that last statement is a little too general. There are plenty of folks who want exactly what you described, and Apple makes a number of great machines for them. From the newly released iPad, to the MacBook series, and even the iPhone and iPod touch. All perfect for what you describe (maybe not so much for word processing with the iPhone).



    However, I doubt few coffee shop users are looking to drop $2,000 to $2,500 on a laptop as it's serious overkill for their needs. These machines are designed for, and marketed to, professionals. Apple promotes the 17" MBP and upper end 15" to photographers, video editors, musicians. Attend any photography or video event, and you'll see Apple there, laptops in tow, promoting the great combination of Aperture, Final Cut, and a MBP. Theses apps are all about raw processing power, and Apple prices the machines accordingly. As such, it's a disappointment to see them allow Dell, HP, and company move so far ahead of them in performance. We haven't seen this kind of performance gap in the professional laptop space since Apple was using PowerPC chips.



    Yeah, to some of you professionals are just whiners, but unlike Blu-ray, 1080p, eSATA, etc. basic performance is a huge part of my ability to do my job efficiently. Time is literally money in the creative field. When you're importing a couple thousand 21 megapixel RAW photos, and running batch changes to them in Aperture, we're talking a significant amount of time spent waiting for the computer. Video guys have it far worse. Desktops are an answer, but they're problematic as more and more of us are doing our work outside of the office on locations, in studios, etc. We need, don't want, a top of the line performing laptop from Apple.
  • Reply 84 of 366
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post


    While I don't really care about Blu-ray in my MBP, there really should be a Blu-ray option, like the anti-glare screen, for those who want it and are willing to spend the extra dough.



    For Blu-ray? How about $500 for it.



    This is my sentiment exactly. I believe there should be a BTO option so those of us who actually want it, have the option of getting. Not necessarily in a MBP, but in a gorgeous 27" iMac. $500 would probably be a little steep. I'm thinking $300-$400 at the most.
  • Reply 85 of 366
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1984 View Post


    He's full of it. Why is it not a "bag of hurt" for any other manufacturers? The ONLY reason they don't offer it is because they don't want anything to compete with their "HD Lite" digital downloads.



    Jobs' comment had nothing to do with physically putting a Blu-ray drive in a machine but the licensing which would then allow them to add AACS to the OS. However, when the statement was made there was a physical issue with Blu-ray drive drives for the 9.5mm drives that Apple uses.



    It's silly to expect Apple would first add Blu-ray to a notebook over their desktop offerings and to offer such a drive with no Blu-ray video playback. If you really need or want Blu-ray for backups then buy an internal or external drive for backups.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post


    So because you don't want these things, no one else should have them? And if you do you are a whiner? How intolerant of you.



    Because a few people want them then Apple should have included them? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... and the one.



    People are whiners if they format their comments as such. People are idiots if they actually expected certain features or options didn't come.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post


    I'm assuming you're joking, but the 15" internal is 1440 x 900, or now optionally 1680 x 1050. Neither are Full-HD (1920 x 1080). My MacBook Pro OUTPUTS 1920 x 1080 and beyond. My external monitor 1920 x 1200.



    I don't get the people that think 1080p display is significant to image quality. You'd hear cheering if Apple made it a 1080p 16:9 ratio display, even if it was TN. Oh, external output can be up to 2560 x 1600.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    The new graphics on the 13" MacBook look to be three times faster than the old 9400M.



    The "GeForce 320M" appears to be based upon the GT315 desktop product line because it has 48 processing cores, rather than the desktop GT320 product which has 72 processing cores.



    More interestingly, it is integrated. What this means is that NVIDIA have created a new, previously unheralded, chipset to replace the 9400M (and no, this isn't Ion 2 under a different name) with three times as much graphics capability. The 9400M could do 54 GFLOPS of computation, this new chipset could do over 150 GFLOPS depending on operating clock.



    The "GeForce 330M" does appear to be based upon the desktop GT330 or even the GT340. I suspect it has 96 processing cores and can do around 300 GFLOPS of computation.



    The Core 2 Duos in the 13" MacBook are a let down compared to getting Core i3s or lower-end Core i5s.



    There has been too long of a delay in updating the MacBook line - 10 months is a long time in the Intel PC world.



    I look forward to tests between the new and old 13" MBPs. faster CPU and IGP plus 3 hours more of battery life looks great.



    This also gives me hope that the MBA will also get a greatly improved battery life.
  • Reply 86 of 366
    amac4meamac4me Posts: 282member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    This is my sentiment exactly. I believe there should be a BTO option so those of us who actually want it, have the option of getting. Not necessarily in a MBP, but in a gorgeous 27" iMac. $500 would probably be a little steep. I'm thinking $300-$400 at the most.



    The chances that Apple adopts BluRay is slim to none. Look at the overall strategy and industry trajectory. Physical media is dead. Apple wants to build up the iTunes platform as a distribution hub.
  • Reply 87 of 366
    q dudeq dude Posts: 16member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    This is my sentiment exactly. I believe there should be a BTO option so those of us who actually want it, have the option of getting. Not necessarily in a MBP, but in a gorgeous 27" iMac. $500 would probably be a little steep. I'm thinking $300-$400 at the most.



    Why wouldn't you just purchase an external one?
  • Reply 88 of 366
    Damn, waited for ~9 months for Arrandale in the 13".



    Oh well, it's about the right time for me to buy, and I was mostly interested in waiting until the latest were out. The specific chip isn't that important. Love the bumped battery life in the 13". Time to see if I can get a purchase order approved.



    If not, I may end up seeing if I can live with the iPad as a laptop replacement at home.
  • Reply 89 of 366
    Anyone notice the "antiglare" option on the high res 15" display? It's not advertised at "matte" - so what is it?
  • Reply 90 of 366
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,581member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post


    Plus it's gently washed with unicorn tears!



    By virgins, just before the fairies sprinkle on the pixie dust.
  • Reply 91 of 366
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KBeat View Post


    Yeah, to some of you professionals are just whiners, but unlike Blu-ray, 1080p, eSATA, etc. basic performance is a huge part of my ability to do my job efficiently. Time is literally money in the creative field. When you're importing a couple thousand 21 megapixel RAW photos, and running batch changes to them in Aperture, we're talking a significant amount of time spent waiting for the computer. Video guys have it far worse. Desktops are an answer, but they're problematic as more and more of us are doing our work outside of the office on locations, in studios, etc. We need, don't want, a top of the line performing laptop from Apple.



    Absolutely!



    Sure, I carry my MBP around, but it's mainly from desk to desk, plugged into the wall, only occasionally using it for train/plane/bus travel.



    I use Vectorworks and need raw power for my CAD & 3D work. I'd be willing to sacrifice the giant battery if it meant getting a quad-core processor!
  • Reply 92 of 366
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by amac4me View Post


    The chances that Apple adopts BluRay is slim to none. Look at the overall strategy and industry trajectory. Physical media is dead. Apple wants to build up the iTunes platform as a distribution hub.



    Though you're probably right about the chances of getting blu-ray on a Mac, I hardly think physical media is dead. Last time I checked, CDs were still holding their own against digital downloads. DVDs and Blu-rays are also selling well. The reports of the demise of physical media have been greatly exaggerated.
  • Reply 93 of 366
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    The new graphics on the 13" MacBook look to be three times faster than the old 9400M.



    The "GeForce 320M" appears to be based upon the GT315 desktop product line because it has 48 processing cores, rather than the desktop GT320 product which has 72 processing cores.



    More interestingly, it is integrated. What this means is that NVIDIA have created a new, previously unheralded, chipset to replace the 9400M (and no, this isn't Ion 2 under a different name) with three times as much graphics capability. The 9400M could do 54 GFLOPS of computation, this new chipset could do over 150 GFLOPS depending on operating clock.



    The "GeForce 330M" does appear to be based upon the desktop GT330 or even the GT340. I suspect it has 96 processing cores and can do around 300 GFLOPS of computation.



    The Core 2 Duos in the 13" MacBook are a let down compared to getting Core i3s or lower-end Core i5s.



    There has been too long of a delay in updating the MacBook line - 10 months is a long time in the Intel PC world.



    Wrong. The GT 330M is basically a faster-clocked 240M and it has 48 processing cores. It's definitely not based on the desktop GT 330. There's more info here and here.
  • Reply 94 of 366
    boogabooga Posts: 1,079member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Exactly..... let me pre-empt the whiners: No Blu Ray, matte, touch screen, USB3, pixie dust, 20-hour battery, user-removable battery..... moan moan.......



    Get on with it, folks!



    Actually, there IS a matte option with the hi-res 15" screen.
  • Reply 95 of 366
    The 15" updates look great. But I've got a 2 year old 15" now. My next laptop will be a 13". I want more portability. This is why I'm disappointed in this release. Seems like Apple once again forgets about the 13". Why can't it have the same processor as the 15"? I would go for it if it came with the i5. But no way am I buying a computer in 2010 with a Core 2 processor. That is 2008 technology.



    I thought Apple turned the corner last year when they elevated the 13" to Pro status. But it seems like they've changed their minds again. Too bad. I can hold out another year or two with my 15".



    I just hope Apple doesn't do to the laptops what they did to the desktops. I've still got my PowerPC Dual 2.0ghz G5 because I can't afford the Mac Pro's anymore. Its like Apple is abandoning the "middle class" of computers. They make killer pro machines and decent consumer machines, but are forgetting about the prosumer. Those of us who want more power but don't want a one piece desktop system or a powerful but very portable laptop.
  • Reply 96 of 366
    For esata think FW800 and USB 3 instead.
  • Reply 97 of 366
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by q dude View Post


    Why wouldn't you just purchase an external one?



    I might just do that. I'm waiting to see what my next Mac will be (iMac or MacPro).
  • Reply 98 of 366
    amac4meamac4me Posts: 282member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    Though you're probably right about the chances of getting blu-ray on a Mac, I hardly think physical media is dead. Last time I checked, CDs were still holding their own against digital downloads. DVDs and Blu-rays are also selling well. The reports of the demise of physical media have been greatly exaggerated.



    Well, if you look at the "economics" of information goods (bits), you'll see that the marginal cost of selling a digital copy of say a movie, song, etc is essentially zero. Store it once, sell it numerous time. The scale is enormous. Thus, it's more economical for companies to sell a digital version over a physical version. In terms of scale, there are higher returns. The consumer ends up paying less because the price point is lower but the company selling the good actually makes more per unit.



    Apple is clearly a middle-man, look at iTunes, look at iPhone/iPad apps. Apple is platform provider that bring together content creators with those who want to consume content be it songs, movies, apps, etc ...



    If Apple were to adopt BluRay, they would have done it by now. The fact that they haven't demonstrates that they do not want to undermine their ability to distribute content and take their cut from the transaction.
  • Reply 99 of 366
    hattighattig Posts: 830member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kfscoll View Post


    Wrong. The GT 330M is basically a faster-clocked 240M and it has 48 processing cores. It's definitely not based on the desktop GT 330. There's more info here and here.



    Well that's rubbish then.



    Also rubbish is that with 48 shaders (compared to 16) the 320M is only getting between 1.3x and 1.8x the performance.
  • Reply 100 of 366
    Apple just confirmed my order. Yeehaa!
Sign In or Register to comment.