I spent time at an Apple Store today checking them out. They didn't have the high-res 15" but they had a 17" which is only slightly higher ppi. I didn't care for the small text.
13" MBP = 113ppi
15" MBP = 110ppi
15" MBP HR = 129ppi
17" MBP = 133ppi
The 13" MBP was nice. It's what I'm leaning toward. The force acceleration of the new trackpads worked great.
I tried to test the battery duration of the new 15" MBPs with switchable graphics. There was no reported change when switching between 720p videos in YouTube using HTML5 and Flash or any other tests trying to force the GPU over the IGP. Whether you checked the box in Power Savings to let the system decide which graphics option to use or unchecked it to only use the discrete GPU there was no change to the system acted. Turns out the never added yesterday's update to those MBPs. It was going to take 2 hours to DL so I didn't bother.
I didn't see an option to only use the IGP, which would be nice if you are only on battery and wish to preserve power. Since Apple's setup is more thorough than other graphics switching methods I don't think it would be hard to make an option to automatically throttle if you are on power or plugged, which is the way I'd prefer to use it. Maybe it's a PLIST file but I looked and didn't see the option.
They are still using 3Gbps SATA II and there is no word (yet) if they fixed the SATA controller issue that was plaguing 3rd-party drive performance. Was hoping they would have gone with 6Gbps SATA III with the push toward SSD.
Nice PPI analysis! I might reconsider since I am growing older, might not like the smaller text here in a few years.
What is your opinion on chip speed? From my current 2.8 Ghz, thinking I would get about a 25% bump in performance, another few percentages with the 2.53, and around 50% if I go with the i7 chip.
Delta's in price drive me to either the low or high ends, since the middle ground does not really justify the dollars.
I'm on a 2009 13" MBP that is 2.4GHz Penryn so I'd be fine with either of the 13" MBPs. Because of the $300 price difference and the fact that I'll be switching out for a larger HDD I think I'll stick with the low-end model with the same CPU I'm using. I can still get plenty for my current one (if my heart doesn't grow three sizes and I give it away), I get the audio over mDP, the better IGP, force accelerated trackpad (which I loved), and an extra 3 hours of battery.
I like the 15" but the extra performance didn't really do anything for me and I really don't need the dual-GPU. They were impressive, I just don't need it as I don't use any Adobe professional products or play games. Plus, the size was too big for me. I like the portability aspects.
I still need to wait until I get a report from AnandTech that the SATA controller issue is resolved before buying.
I spent time at an Apple Store today checking them out. They didn't have the high-res 15" but they had a 17" which is only slightly higher ppi. I didn't care for the small text.
13" MBP = 113ppi
15" MBP = 110ppi
15" MBP HR = 129ppi
17" MBP = 133ppi
...
Damn. \ ... uh, ...
Thanks for the PPI (Pixels Per Inch) info.
It's what I have always used or calculated when trying to compare and decide on various display choices. That or the similar .xx mm pixel pitch spec.
Your results makes me think that I might never go with the 15" HR 1680x1050 model, even though I kind of like the other aspects of it.
But gotta admit, if I can't read the text, then, um, what's the point...
When I compare those numbers vs my setup now --a Dell 22" 1650x1050 monitor, anti-glare -- the Dell comes in at: 90.8 ppi horizontal, 90.3 ppi vertical, .282 mm pixel pitch, and is eminently readable to me. (huh? but its not the same h vs v? Dang!)
So looks like (so to speak) the high-res on a 15.4" screen is going to be pretty dang hard to read text.
It's what I have always used or calculated when trying to compare and decide on various display choices. That or the similar .xx mm pixel pitch spec.
I can't see Apple going another Mac OS X update without RI. The displays are screaming for higher-res. I wish they'd at least work on an intermediate option like Windows has.
Here is the site I use to calculate the ppi. Also does dot pitch.
Yep, the megahertz, now gigahertz myth still lives.
Again, not a myth. At one time, intel needed 1gh more than AMD just to be on par with them. Same for apple and it's alvertic?(spelling).
Anyway, it once mattered, then it didn't, but still does play a role. Eg, a 4.5 i7 is going to be very fast as does the fsb, memory speed, FPU (important for plugins with audio and video), OpenGL, and CPU. All together it does make a difference. I just wish amd would come up with something as Amd had them in price wars and top of the line were very cheap. The one thing I will say on the PC side of things, if you buy the eight motherboard, it's great when youcan just upgrade the CPU. Apple once did that too when the chips were on those long rails. But technology ipad, (stil missing headless midrange or iMac without display) as there are milions of musicians, gamers, up and coming editors that would love an i7 mac proand not the server workstation.
I'd respond to this... but I feel sorry for you getting all that (justified) smacking from other folks.
Sheesh... the misinformation here is just unreal!
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiekiduk
Right on, thanks for slapping him!
Back off fanboys!
1) Despite "Brian" being wrong about the GPU switching technology, the fact is that Nvidia's Optimus provides a very similar solution for PC users.
2) Based on industry standard benchmarks, the new Intel GMA HD that comes with the Core i3/i5/i7 (depending on clock speed) is essentially equal to the 9400M in most performance characteristics:
1) Despite "Brian" being wrong about the GPU switching technology, the fact is that Nvidia's Optimus provides a very similar solution for PC users.
2) Based on industry standard benchmarks, the new Intel GMA HD that comes with the Core i3/i5/i7 (depending on clock speed) is essentially equal to the 9400M in most performance characteristics:
I love this one especially. No, this is not Apple's own proprietary switching solution. This is, in fact, nVidia Optimus technology.
Apple doesn't "think like that". They're using technology developed by other companies that's been out on other devices for months already. This is nothing new.
Simply put..it's an appleinsider article. I've read enough of them to note that this place seriously enjoys giving Apple more credit than is due.
Accomplished only on nVidia Optimus aware nVidia mobile GPU's
This wouldn't be possible without nVidia having created Optimus in the first place.
If he would have come on to the forum suggesting that AI may be mistaken that would have been fine. He would have been school, but he wouldn't have been ripped a new one. Instead, he came out with his head up his ass while being a complete dick at the same time.
2) I'm not sure what the Intel HD and 9400M comparison are for since Apple has replaced the 9400M with the 320M in their latest machines.
Some more early benchmarks. Looks like the i7 does not offer a huge boost over i5, but in the real world who knows? I still think I'm going with a 15", i7, anti-glare, 8 gigs RAM.
Comments
I spent time at an Apple Store today checking them out. They didn't have the high-res 15" but they had a 17" which is only slightly higher ppi. I didn't care for the small text.
- 13" MBP = 113ppi
- 15" MBP = 110ppi
- 15" MBP HR = 129ppi
- 17" MBP = 133ppi
The 13" MBP was nice. It's what I'm leaning toward. The force acceleration of the new trackpads worked great.I tried to test the battery duration of the new 15" MBPs with switchable graphics. There was no reported change when switching between 720p videos in YouTube using HTML5 and Flash or any other tests trying to force the GPU over the IGP. Whether you checked the box in Power Savings to let the system decide which graphics option to use or unchecked it to only use the discrete GPU there was no change to the system acted. Turns out the never added yesterday's update to those MBPs. It was going to take 2 hours to DL so I didn't bother.
I didn't see an option to only use the IGP, which would be nice if you are only on battery and wish to preserve power. Since Apple's setup is more thorough than other graphics switching methods I don't think it would be hard to make an option to automatically throttle if you are on power or plugged, which is the way I'd prefer to use it. Maybe it's a PLIST file but I looked and didn't see the option.
They are still using 3Gbps SATA II and there is no word (yet) if they fixed the SATA controller issue that was plaguing 3rd-party drive performance. Was hoping they would have gone with 6Gbps SATA III with the push toward SSD.
Nice PPI analysis! I might reconsider since I am growing older, might not like the smaller text here in a few years.
What is your opinion on chip speed? From my current 2.8 Ghz, thinking I would get about a 25% bump in performance, another few percentages with the 2.53, and around 50% if I go with the i7 chip.
Delta's in price drive me to either the low or high ends, since the middle ground does not really justify the dollars.
What is your opinion on chip speed?
I'm on a 2009 13" MBP that is 2.4GHz Penryn so I'd be fine with either of the 13" MBPs. Because of the $300 price difference and the fact that I'll be switching out for a larger HDD I think I'll stick with the low-end model with the same CPU I'm using. I can still get plenty for my current one (if my heart doesn't grow three sizes and I give it away), I get the audio over mDP, the better IGP, force accelerated trackpad (which I loved), and an extra 3 hours of battery.
I like the 15" but the extra performance didn't really do anything for me and I really don't need the dual-GPU. They were impressive, I just don't need it as I don't use any Adobe professional products or play games. Plus, the size was too big for me. I like the portability aspects.
I still need to wait until I get a report from AnandTech that the SATA controller issue is resolved before buying.
So, as it turns out, the speed isn't as important as achitecture.
Looks like we're back to the old dialogue again?
Non tech-saavy computer owner: "My computer is a 2.8 Core2Duo, so it's faster than your 2.66 i7."
Tech-savvy computer owner: "Errrr... no, mines a i7."
Non tech-saavy computer owner: "Nu-uh"
Tech-saavy computer owner: "Yuh-huh"
Non tech-saavy computer owner: "My dad can beat up your dad..."
L.O.L FUNNY
Thanks for the chance to chuckle
I spent time at an Apple Store today checking them out. They didn't have the high-res 15" but they had a 17" which is only slightly higher ppi. I didn't care for the small text.
- 13" MBP = 113ppi
- 15" MBP = 110ppi
- 15" MBP HR = 129ppi
- 17" MBP = 133ppi
...Damn.
Thanks for the PPI (Pixels Per Inch) info.
It's what I have always used or calculated when trying to compare and decide on various display choices. That or the similar .xx mm pixel pitch spec.
Your results makes me think that I might never go with the 15" HR 1680x1050 model, even though I kind of like the other aspects of it.
But gotta admit, if I can't read the text, then, um, what's the point...
When I compare those numbers vs my setup now --a Dell 22" 1650x1050 monitor, anti-glare -- the Dell comes in at: 90.8 ppi horizontal, 90.3 ppi vertical, .282 mm pixel pitch, and is eminently readable to me. (huh? but its not the same h vs v? Dang!)
So looks like (so to speak) the high-res on a 15.4" screen is going to be pretty dang hard to read text.
Thanks for the PPI (Pixels Per Inch) info.
It's what I have always used or calculated when trying to compare and decide on various display choices. That or the similar .xx mm pixel pitch spec.
I can't see Apple going another Mac OS X update without RI. The displays are screaming for higher-res. I wish they'd at least work on an intermediate option like Windows has.
Here is the site I use to calculate the ppi. Also does dot pitch.
Yep, the megahertz, now gigahertz myth still lives.
Again, not a myth. At one time, intel needed 1gh more than AMD just to be on par with them. Same for apple and it's alvertic?(spelling).
Anyway, it once mattered, then it didn't, but still does play a role. Eg, a 4.5 i7 is going to be very fast as does the fsb, memory speed, FPU (important for plugins with audio and video), OpenGL, and CPU. All together it does make a difference. I just wish amd would come up with something as Amd had them in price wars and top of the line were very cheap. The one thing I will say on the PC side of things, if you buy the eight motherboard, it's great when youcan just upgrade the CPU. Apple once did that too when the chips were on those long rails. But technology ipad, (stil missing headless midrange or iMac without display) as there are milions of musicians, gamers, up and coming editors that would love an i7 mac proand not the server workstation.
I'd respond to this... but I feel sorry for you getting all that (justified) smacking from other folks.
Sheesh... the misinformation here is just unreal!
Right on, thanks for slapping him!
Back off fanboys!
1) Despite "Brian" being wrong about the GPU switching technology, the fact is that Nvidia's Optimus provides a very similar solution for PC users.
2) Based on industry standard benchmarks, the new Intel GMA HD that comes with the Core i3/i5/i7 (depending on clock speed) is essentially equal to the 9400M in most performance characteristics:
Compare their 3DMark05 / 3DMark06 scores here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...G.11949.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-G...D.23065.0.html
Back off fanboys!
1) Despite "Brian" being wrong about the GPU switching technology, the fact is that Nvidia's Optimus provides a very similar solution for PC users.
2) Based on industry standard benchmarks, the new Intel GMA HD that comes with the Core i3/i5/i7 (depending on clock speed) is essentially equal to the 9400M in most performance characteristics:
Compare their 3DMark05 / 3DMark06 scores here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...G.11949.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-G...D.23065.0.html
1) Let's review what he wrote...
- The misinformation here is just unreal
- I love this one especially. No, this is not Apple's own proprietary switching solution. This is, in fact, nVidia Optimus technology.
- Apple doesn't "think like that". They're using technology developed by other companies that's been out on other devices for months already. This is nothing new.
- Simply put..it's an appleinsider article. I've read enough of them to note that this place seriously enjoys giving Apple more credit than is due.
- Accomplished only on nVidia Optimus aware nVidia mobile GPU's
- This wouldn't be possible without nVidia having created Optimus in the first place.
If he would have come on to the forum suggesting that AI may be mistaken that would have been fine. He would have been school, but he wouldn't have been ripped a new one. Instead, he came out with his head up his ass while being a complete dick at the same time.2) I'm not sure what the Intel HD and 9400M comparison are for since Apple has replaced the 9400M with the 320M in their latest machines.
Primate Labs
But what about the difference between the 7200 RPM 500GB hard disc, or the 512GB SSD?
Yeah, I know it's a lot of cha-ching, but I plan on keeping this new baby for several years.
OK, so MPB 17, with i7 2.66GHz 8G RAM- all is a given.
But what about the difference between the 7200 RPM 500GB hard disc, or the 512GB SSD?
Yeah, I know it's a lot of cha-ching, but I plan on keeping this new baby for several years.
I am tempted, but I keep laptops for like 5 years. Would an SSD even work after that long? I understand they degrade with use.
I am tempted, but I keep laptops for like 5 years. Would an SSD even work after that long? I understand they degrade with use.
Good point. I had not thought about degradation.