Honestly it doesn't make sense. Sure you got a fast CPU but the hard disk is slow. And you got a fast I/O but without fast hard drives again. It's disturbing. This is one product announcement I am actually dreading for the first time ever.
I want a faster CPU but I'm going backward on graphics. Then I'd have to put in a 7200rpm HDD or aftermarket SSD anyway. Where's the improvement besides CPU? This update is too pro-Intel and not pro-Apple enough. Not liking it one bit at this stage, and yes, I still haven't calmed down. Winds of change beat furiously overhead as we encircle the dawning of a new IT age post-laptop post-desktop.
I'm having the same thoughts. If this is legit and this is not just a replacement for the white MacBook, with the other 13" and up models getting a major overhaul, it would be a huge disappointment in my book. I can't even think of a good reason to upgrade my late 2008 MacBook (the first aluminium one) to a laptop with the specs I see on this box.
WHAT? NO DISCRETE GPU FOR THE 13"? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Apple, why do this? The Sandy Bridge IGP is barely as good as the 320M. Those extra 128 Mb better be worth it.
My mistake. Allow me to rephrase. You're talking about the company that's using 2.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in four of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.
May as well ignore the white MacBook and the Mac Mini in this discussion as well. For the form factor, the c2d and 320M paired up are just as effective as an i3 w/IGP. Personally I think an upgrade to SB for the Mini will be a very nice upgrade indeed
Honestly it doesn't make sense. Sure you got a fast CPU but the hard disk is slow. And you got a fast I/O but without fast hard drives again. It's disturbing. This is one product announcement I am actually dreading for the first time ever.
I want a faster CPU but I'm going backward on graphics. Then I'd have to put in a 7200rpm HDD or aftermarket SSD anyway. Where's the improvement besides CPU? This update is too pro-Intel and not pro-Apple enough. Not liking it one bit at this stage, and yes, I still haven't calmed down. Winds of change beat furiously overhead as we encircle the dawning of a new IT age post-laptop post-desktop.
One thing's for sure: if this is supposed to be the new baseline 1199$-MBP, it's an ill-conceived configuration, as you correctly point out. The i5 would be a major improvement over the current C2D, but the IGP sucks. Thunderbolt has the potential to be amazing, but I don't really care about fast I/O when a) there aren't any devices supporting it and b) the internal hard drive is puny and laughably slow. And don't even get me started on the screen. 1280x800 on 13 inches in the year 2011? It's not April 1st, is it?
So yeah, all in all this is a weird machine. Very lopsided and unbalanced configuration, if you ask me. Again, the only thing that makes sense to me is to consider this the replacement of the $999 white MB. If it's supposed to be anything else, it's a failure.
Imo, this is fake. I can't see Apple releasing the MacBook Air months ago, calling it the "next generation of MacBooks", then coming with specifications like this several months later.
While Sandy Bridge and Light Peak certainly are nice and interesting features, the lack of SSD and the better screen simply doesn't sound right. In general, the Air model would feel more responsive and would deliver a better experience. I can't see them going in this direction. The models don't get any lighter, there's still the obligatory SuperDrive in there, and they would be taking a (small) step backwards in terms of graphics.
Except for the users who really need raw processing power, without much more, in a package that is as small as possible, the MacBook Air is a better option. It's lighter, better looking and would perform the same or better in day-to-day tasks.
If this is true however, it'll be a huge disappointment.
The memory speed was increased to 1333MHz from 1066Hz
The SD Slot was upgraded to SDXC
The HD storage was increased to 320GB (from 250, assuming this is the basic version)
It's an i5! Not an i3 many thought it would be.
The Sandy Bridge IGP, although barely as good as the 320M, has 1.5x the memory shared, and has that neat transcoding stuff that should kick the 320M in the ass as far as video goes.
It's definitely photoshopped. The perspective on the ports changes dramatically between the firewire & thunderbolt port, and notice how the shiny edge on the right comes to a point and disappears under the second USB port from the right.
What do you think is easier?
1. Taking a picture of a real MacBook Pro today, and then just photoshopping the thunderbolt logo on it. Changing perspective is easily explained by a wide angle lens.
2. Your claim of compositing port photos taken from different angles onto a single photo seemlessly?
Why would someone do it your way, when it's easier just to take a picture of an existing MacBook Pro?
It may be photoshopped, but I find your reasoning ridiculous. It reminds me of people who claim bad Chinese restaurants serve dog or pigeon instead of chicken. Have you ever tried to catch a pigeon or stray dog? It's much easier and cheaper to use actual chicken.
Thunderbolt? I prefer the 'Light Peak' name. A unique implementation might require a different name but 'thunderbolt' seems so juvenile. Oh well, kids will love it.
Couldn't agree more. What a stupid name. Seriously, just stick with Light Peak.
This has to be the replacement for the white Macbook. The specs don't make sense for an MBP, especially the screen.
Considering the specs show a FW800 port, this would have to be a 13" Pro since the white MB doesn't have a FW port. My guess is this is the entry-level 13" pro and the higher_end 13" may get the better screen, etc.
At least the GPU is HD3000, which is decent for a non gaming PC. I was scare they used HD2000 which is very bad.
I still wonder what GPU is going to be on higher models.
Since most of the new external USB drives are going to be USB 3.0, I was hoping for USB 3.0 support...
Actually, all Intel Sandy Bridge mobile processors use the HD3000 GPU. It's the desktop CPU's that use either the HD2000 or HD3000 depending on the model you get.
let's hope these are specs for macbook replacement not the macbook pro replacement.
would make more sense to me, as an upgrade path for current macbook customers, they would benefit from unibody construction, backlit keyboard and sd card slot.
it's hard to believe (at least for me) that after hi-res 13" panel used in macbook air apple would use lower res panel in macbook pro range with the same screen size.
but i might be wrong and/or wishful.
but the earlier rumors regarding 16GB ssd on board for system would make sense (macbook air flies in comparison with my macbook pro 13 late 2009).
Ok, after the initial shock, those specs aren't bad at all, if true. Anand Tech's tests show that the SB IGP is as good as a ATI 5450 (low-end dedicated), so they are actually a tad better than the 320M.
A classmate recently bought a 1.4 Quad-core i7 with 5450 graphics. It runs Dead Space 2 really well (better than my 2010 320M 13" MBP). I guess that for the 13" the real bottleneck now is in the processor, not the GPU (for games at least).
Considering that Anand also tested the Turbo Boost for graphics (essentially an official overclock) and that it showed an average 19% increased performance on games over the stock condition IGP, that's not quite bad. Quick Sync is better even than high-end dedicated GPUs for video transcoding, not to mention that in pure CPU terms, Sandy Bridge is 20% faster clock-for-clock versus the Nehalem, which in turn is God-knows-how-much faster than the C2D in current MBPs. So going from 2.4 C2D to 2.3 i5 this year will give the MBP a much greater leap than most would think. Compression/Decompression of files is also faster clock-for-clock.
If the screen turns out to be IPS, the FaceTime camera is *really* HD and Thunderbolt proves to be quite slick, not a bad update at all.
Well, yeah, I obviously don't know if this is the new MBP or the new MB or simply a fake. But let's just think about this for a minute.
Option 1: This is the new entry-level 1199$ Macbook Pro. Possible, but not very likely IMHO. At least I hope so, because it would be very, very strange to introduce a supposedly pro-level laptop with a display that's vastly inferior to the screen in the current ultraportable lineup. And I don't just mean the 13"-Air; even the 11"-MBA has more pixels than this leaked laptop. For 1199$, this would be a very tough sell, considering you can get a 13"-MBA with a much better screen, an SSD, and no useles optical drive for 1299$.
Option 2: Apple axe the white Macbook (or relegate it to EDU-only status, kind of like the eMac way back when) and introduce this leaked product as the new entry-level portable at 999$. Now THAT would be a pretty convincing move. The terrible resolution still strikes me as weird, but at 999$, this would be a fine replacement for the plastic Macbook, and it would give consumers a very decent new option at the entry-level. If you wanted to get into Macs, you could then choose between the very capable and portable 11"-MBA, an upgraded iPad, or this new unibody Macbook.
I'm not necessarily saying option two is more likely or anything, it's just the scenario that makes more sense to me. If they go with option 1, it will be disappointing, but not surprising. Apple haven't ever taken the 13"-pro seriously since they introduced it in June 2009.
Please note that millions of people couldn't care less and will buy it anyway. Apple can't use nVidia chips, but why they didn't go to ATI is beyond me.
yes they can... they cannot use nvidia chipsets with IGPs, they must use intel chipsets... but they can still put in any GPU they want.. nvidia GPUs will work fine.
One thing's for sure: if this is supposed to be the new baseline 1199$-MBP, it's an ill-conceived configuration, as you correctly point out. The i5 would be a major improvement over the current C2D, but the IGP sucks. Thunderbolt has the potential to be amazing, but I don't really care about fast I/O when a) there aren't any devices supporting it and b) the internal hard drive is puny and laughably slow. And don't even get me started on the screen. 1280x800 on 13 inches in the year 2011? It's not April 1st, is it?
So yeah, all in all this is a weird machine. Very lopsided and unbalanced configuration, if you ask me. Again, the only thing that makes sense to me is to consider this the replacement of the $999 white MB. If it's supposed to be anything else, it's a failure.
As I already pointed out, it isn't quite bad. But if this is the $999 model, then there is hope for the $1199 one to have a newer dedicated GPU, so I hope you are right
Perhaps ThunderBolt is the name of the not so light "Copper LightPeak". Thunder can be guided with copper while Light needs optical cables.
LightPeak has never been about replacing other standards (at least not in the first round). It's been about running all standards over the same cable. So theoretically those USB ports we see there, wouldn't need to be there if they all branched out in a ThunderBolt HUB with multiple inputs.
Comments
Honestly it doesn't make sense. Sure you got a fast CPU but the hard disk is slow. And you got a fast I/O but without fast hard drives again. It's disturbing. This is one product announcement I am actually dreading for the first time ever.
I want a faster CPU but I'm going backward on graphics. Then I'd have to put in a 7200rpm HDD or aftermarket SSD anyway. Where's the improvement besides CPU? This update is too pro-Intel and not pro-Apple enough. Not liking it one bit at this stage, and yes, I still haven't calmed down. Winds of change beat furiously overhead as we encircle the dawning of a new IT age post-laptop post-desktop.
I'm having the same thoughts. If this is legit and this is not just a replacement for the white MacBook, with the other 13" and up models getting a major overhaul, it would be a huge disappointment in my book. I can't even think of a good reason to upgrade my late 2008 MacBook (the first aluminium one) to a laptop with the specs I see on this box.
Apple, why do this? The Sandy Bridge IGP is barely as good as the 320M. Those extra 128 Mb better be worth it.
My mistake. Allow me to rephrase. You're talking about the company that's using 2.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in four of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.
May as well ignore the white MacBook and the Mac Mini in this discussion as well. For the form factor, the c2d and 320M paired up are just as effective as an i3 w/IGP. Personally I think an upgrade to SB for the Mini will be a very nice upgrade indeed
Honestly it doesn't make sense. Sure you got a fast CPU but the hard disk is slow. And you got a fast I/O but without fast hard drives again. It's disturbing. This is one product announcement I am actually dreading for the first time ever.
I want a faster CPU but I'm going backward on graphics. Then I'd have to put in a 7200rpm HDD or aftermarket SSD anyway. Where's the improvement besides CPU? This update is too pro-Intel and not pro-Apple enough. Not liking it one bit at this stage, and yes, I still haven't calmed down. Winds of change beat furiously overhead as we encircle the dawning of a new IT age post-laptop post-desktop.
One thing's for sure: if this is supposed to be the new baseline 1199$-MBP, it's an ill-conceived configuration, as you correctly point out. The i5 would be a major improvement over the current C2D, but the IGP sucks. Thunderbolt has the potential to be amazing, but I don't really care about fast I/O when a) there aren't any devices supporting it and b) the internal hard drive is puny and laughably slow. And don't even get me started on the screen. 1280x800 on 13 inches in the year 2011? It's not April 1st, is it?
So yeah, all in all this is a weird machine. Very lopsided and unbalanced configuration, if you ask me. Again, the only thing that makes sense to me is to consider this the replacement of the $999 white MB. If it's supposed to be anything else, it's a failure.
While Sandy Bridge and Light Peak certainly are nice and interesting features, the lack of SSD and the better screen simply doesn't sound right. In general, the Air model would feel more responsive and would deliver a better experience. I can't see them going in this direction. The models don't get any lighter, there's still the obligatory SuperDrive in there, and they would be taking a (small) step backwards in terms of graphics.
Except for the users who really need raw processing power, without much more, in a package that is as small as possible, the MacBook Air is a better option. It's lighter, better looking and would perform the same or better in day-to-day tasks.
If this is true however, it'll be a huge disappointment.
The iSight, errrr, FaceTime camera will do HD
The memory speed was increased to 1333MHz from 1066Hz
The SD Slot was upgraded to SDXC
The HD storage was increased to 320GB (from 250, assuming this is the basic version)
It's an i5! Not an i3 many thought it would be.
The Sandy Bridge IGP, although barely as good as the 320M, has 1.5x the memory shared, and has that neat transcoding stuff that should kick the 320M in the ass as far as video goes.
Light Peak = bright, futuristic, clean, fast
Thunderbolt = Harry Potter, Monster Truck, racehorse
It's definitely photoshopped. The perspective on the ports changes dramatically between the firewire & thunderbolt port, and notice how the shiny edge on the right comes to a point and disappears under the second USB port from the right.
What do you think is easier?
1. Taking a picture of a real MacBook Pro today, and then just photoshopping the thunderbolt logo on it. Changing perspective is easily explained by a wide angle lens.
2. Your claim of compositing port photos taken from different angles onto a single photo seemlessly?
Why would someone do it your way, when it's easier just to take a picture of an existing MacBook Pro?
It may be photoshopped, but I find your reasoning ridiculous. It reminds me of people who claim bad Chinese restaurants serve dog or pigeon instead of chicken. Have you ever tried to catch a pigeon or stray dog? It's much easier and cheaper to use actual chicken.
I hope this is fake, cuz "Thunderbolt" sounds REALLY lame. But, hey, it's just a marketing title...
Light Peak = bright, futuristic, clean, fast
Thunderbolt = Harry Potter, Monster Truck, racehorse
People used to complain about Bonjour, too. A month later, nobody cared.
Thunderbolt? I prefer the 'Light Peak' name. A unique implementation might require a different name but 'thunderbolt' seems so juvenile. Oh well, kids will love it.
Couldn't agree more. What a stupid name. Seriously, just stick with Light Peak.
Is this Thor's computer? So stupid...
This has to be the replacement for the white Macbook. The specs don't make sense for an MBP, especially the screen.
Considering the specs show a FW800 port, this would have to be a 13" Pro since the white MB doesn't have a FW port. My guess is this is the entry-level 13" pro and the higher_end 13" may get the better screen, etc.
I guess we won't know for sure till tomorrow.
At least the GPU is HD3000, which is decent for a non gaming PC. I was scare they used HD2000 which is very bad.
I still wonder what GPU is going to be on higher models.
Since most of the new external USB drives are going to be USB 3.0, I was hoping for USB 3.0 support...
Actually, all Intel Sandy Bridge mobile processors use the HD3000 GPU. It's the desktop CPU's that use either the HD2000 or HD3000 depending on the model you get.
would make more sense to me, as an upgrade path for current macbook customers, they would benefit from unibody construction, backlit keyboard and sd card slot.
it's hard to believe (at least for me) that after hi-res 13" panel used in macbook air apple would use lower res panel in macbook pro range with the same screen size.
but i might be wrong and/or wishful.
but the earlier rumors regarding 16GB ssd on board for system would make sense (macbook air flies in comparison with my macbook pro 13 late 2009).
what i hope is gonna happen is this:
mba 11"
mba 13"
mb 13" (this one)
mbp 13"-17" with dedicated ssd storage for system
and 15-17" with dedicated gpu
A classmate recently bought a 1.4 Quad-core i7 with 5450 graphics. It runs Dead Space 2 really well (better than my 2010 320M 13" MBP). I guess that for the 13" the real bottleneck now is in the processor, not the GPU (for games at least).
Considering that Anand also tested the Turbo Boost for graphics (essentially an official overclock) and that it showed an average 19% increased performance on games over the stock condition IGP, that's not quite bad. Quick Sync is better even than high-end dedicated GPUs for video transcoding, not to mention that in pure CPU terms, Sandy Bridge is 20% faster clock-for-clock versus the Nehalem, which in turn is God-knows-how-much faster than the C2D in current MBPs. So going from 2.4 C2D to 2.3 i5 this year will give the MBP a much greater leap than most would think. Compression/Decompression of files is also faster clock-for-clock.
If the screen turns out to be IPS, the FaceTime camera is *really* HD and Thunderbolt proves to be quite slick, not a bad update at all.
Well, yeah, I obviously don't know if this is the new MBP or the new MB or simply a fake. But let's just think about this for a minute.
Option 1: This is the new entry-level 1199$ Macbook Pro. Possible, but not very likely IMHO. At least I hope so, because it would be very, very strange to introduce a supposedly pro-level laptop with a display that's vastly inferior to the screen in the current ultraportable lineup. And I don't just mean the 13"-Air; even the 11"-MBA has more pixels than this leaked laptop. For 1199$, this would be a very tough sell, considering you can get a 13"-MBA with a much better screen, an SSD, and no useles optical drive for 1299$.
Option 2: Apple axe the white Macbook (or relegate it to EDU-only status, kind of like the eMac way back when) and introduce this leaked product as the new entry-level portable at 999$. Now THAT would be a pretty convincing move. The terrible resolution still strikes me as weird, but at 999$, this would be a fine replacement for the plastic Macbook, and it would give consumers a very decent new option at the entry-level. If you wanted to get into Macs, you could then choose between the very capable and portable 11"-MBA, an upgraded iPad, or this new unibody Macbook.
I'm not necessarily saying option two is more likely or anything, it's just the scenario that makes more sense to me. If they go with option 1, it will be disappointing, but not surprising. Apple haven't ever taken the 13"-pro seriously since they introduced it in June 2009.
Well said.
Please note that millions of people couldn't care less and will buy it anyway. Apple can't use nVidia chips, but why they didn't go to ATI is beyond me.
yes they can... they cannot use nvidia chipsets with IGPs, they must use intel chipsets... but they can still put in any GPU they want.. nvidia GPUs will work fine.
One thing's for sure: if this is supposed to be the new baseline 1199$-MBP, it's an ill-conceived configuration, as you correctly point out. The i5 would be a major improvement over the current C2D, but the IGP sucks. Thunderbolt has the potential to be amazing, but I don't really care about fast I/O when a) there aren't any devices supporting it and b) the internal hard drive is puny and laughably slow. And don't even get me started on the screen. 1280x800 on 13 inches in the year 2011? It's not April 1st, is it?
So yeah, all in all this is a weird machine. Very lopsided and unbalanced configuration, if you ask me. Again, the only thing that makes sense to me is to consider this the replacement of the $999 white MB. If it's supposed to be anything else, it's a failure.
As I already pointed out, it isn't quite bad. But if this is the $999 model, then there is hope for the $1199 one to have a newer dedicated GPU, so I hope you are right
Why would someone do it your way, when it's easier just to take a picture of an existing MacBook Pro?
I don't know.. maybe because they didn't have an existing MacBook Pro to photograph? ..no camera? ..overconfident in their own Photoshop skills?
Doesn't really matter -- I don't believe the picture is real. We'll know soon enough.. I don't being wrong, it happens all the time.
LightPeak has never been about replacing other standards (at least not in the first round). It's been about running all standards over the same cable. So theoretically those USB ports we see there, wouldn't need to be there if they all branched out in a ThunderBolt HUB with multiple inputs.
Anyways, let's hope it'll stick around.