If the overall performance is higher than before it?s hyperbolic to say it?s hobbled.
Actually it is not. Using an average to gauge a performance increase can be extremely misleading. The MBP 13 has a great CPU and it is definitely an improvement, so if what you do on your machine is CPU bound you will be happy.
However, if you find the CPU of your current MPB 13 adequate and the GPU is where you would like improvement, than this MBP 13 is a downgrade.
Take myself for example, the only time my MBP 13 shows a performance weakness is when I play a game (I have the model that was just replaced).
"Hobbled" seems to fit here because Apple decided to combine a great CPU upgrade with a GPU downgrade compared to the model it is replacing.
I'm surprised the 1.83Ghz Core 2 MacBook Air outranked the 2.4Ghz Core 2 MacBook on the bench.
That is probably because the benchmark in question was an average of a bunch of tests and some of them had to do with drive performance. Since the Air has an SSD, that gave it a boost. On CPU and GPU based benchmarks the Air is slower.
Such a shame that Apple decided to hobble the 13" MacBook Pro with the pathetic intel integrated graphics chip.
They could easily have has the best line out ever of MacBooks, still at least the 15-17" MacBooks have everything a pro could desire.
It isn't hobbled. This is an entry level model. It's entry level model priced. GPU performance isn't worse than the previous model, and is slightly better. But the much faster system overall makes up for the lack of a separate GPU and memory.
If Apple added what you want, they would have had to charge more, and then you would be complaining about that.
The 13" model is a compromise for those who want, and need, a smaller, lighter machine, but who don't need that extra graphics performance. People who need seriously more power will buy the 15" which has it, and the larger, higher resolution screen they need with that power.
For the market the 13" is aimed at, it's plenty good enough.
Bought last years' model and I knew that this would eventually happen, but having to see the leap of technology that Apple makes after having recently dropped thousands of dollars in cash on the quickly depreciating laptop makes me want to kill myself.
Uh, it's just a computer, you know? I'm sure there are much more important things for you to kill yourself over, but they will pass as well, so you might as well stay in the land of the living, so that you can complain along with the rest of us.
And you can be sure that plenty of PC users are thinking the same thing about Sandy Bridge.
I haven't had a chance to look at GPU benchmarks. I know you and I both own the currrent 13" MBP. What do you think of the integrated graphics chip on the MBP compared to what we currently have?
I also never thought I would see a day moving foward where Apple would put out a product where they posted lower battery times. However I think Apple is rating differently now based on WIFI usage
They're using stricter testing methods. What I hate seeing is battery life given as "up to...". That says nothing at all. I'd rather see an honest number, such as we get with the iPad, and other Apple products.
We have CIPA battery rating for cameras, it's about time we get an industry applied standard for other goods as well.
They're using stricter testing methods. What I hate seeing is battery life given as "up to...". That says nothing at all. I'd rather see an honest number, such as we get with the iPad, and other Apple products.
We have CIPA battery rating for cameras, it's about time we get an industry applied standard for other goods as well.
Yeah I have seen battery life ratings "up too" 3.5 hours and know I would be lucky if I got 90 mins out of it. I agree that the iPad rating is pretty good.
While the new system was faster at "just about everything," it did fall short in playing the game Call of Duty 4, averaging 26 frames per second versus 33 frames in last year's model.
From playable to unplayable in some cases. 26FPS I'd say is playable though. For an IGP, I wouldn't say it's necessarily bad but it's a downgrade from last year. It shows how far behind Intel has been when it takes them 2 years to catch up to NVidia. If only they'd put 24 EUs in Ivy Bridge, even 20 and they'd come even with what NVidia would've had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
This is due to the use of Intel's integrated HD Graphics 3000 in the Sandy Bridge processor, while last year's model included a discrete Nvidia graphics card.
The 320M was integrated too but it was separate from the CPU die. The Intel one is combined with the CPU. Apple hasn't had a discrete GPU in the smaller pro laptops since the 12" Powerbooks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Both the new 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros feature discrete Radeon HD 6750M graphics with 1GB of dedicated video memory that makes them display 31 percent more frames per second in Call of Duty 4.
I would have expected a little more than that given Apple's 3x faster graph for Half-Life 2.
The 6490 would be about 30% slower than the 330M and the 6750 has 3x the shader processors although they are at a lower clock. Comparing clock speed, the 6750 should be over 2x the 6490.
Such a shame that Apple decided to hobble the 13" MacBook Pro with the pathetic intel integrated graphics chip.
They could easily have has the best line out ever of MacBooks, still at least the 15-17" MacBooks have everything a pro could desire.
Apple could only let CPU performance get so far ahead before being forced to make the jump. This generations Intel graphics are better than last generations, so the gap in video performance is smaller and the gains in CPU performance are larger.
Nvidia doesn't make integrated video chipsets for the i5/i7 line so there's little Apple can do about it. Unless you can find room in the 13" MBP for discrete graphics. I'm pretty sure Intel is discontinuing Core 2 duo production as well, Apple rode Core 2 duo to the end.
Yeah I am not sure why the optical drive isn't a thing of the past by now. Nice to see you back posting.
By the way I decided to break down and get myself an MBA. I use it more now then my MBP.
Thanks. I’ll be gone again in a day.
11 or 13” MBA? I don’t mine the CPU performance in them, but the max storage will keep me away until I get a desktop as my primary machine… which isn’t likely to happen. I’ll likely stick with my current MBP with SSD and HDD until Apple revamps the lineup.
It looks like that the battery life lasts about 5:25. I do wish Apple could bring more lightness and longer battery life into MBP. Under 2kg in weight, and ten hours of battery life would be a sweet spot for MBP.
There tests are as informative as Apple’s testing methods. They say nothing of the sites, types or sites, size of the sites, other apps, brightness of display, power efficiency settings, type of wireless network, distance from router, internet connection speed, or page refresh times… to name a few. I’d be happy with just a small sample of those, which is something I give AnandTech credit for.
Quote:
Battery Life
We never expect stellar battery life out of 15-inch notebooks, yet that's where the 15-inch MacBook Pro really stands out. On our LAPTOP Battery Test (continuous web surfing over Wi-Fi), the notebook lasted 5 hours and 25 minutes; that's an hour and a half longer than the mainstream average, and almost equal to the ultraportable average, but it's below the expected 7-hour runtime Apple quotes; we will retest this system and update the review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck
Actually it is not. Using an average to gauge a performance increase can be extremely misleading. The MBP 13 has a great CPU and it is definitely an improvement, so if what you do on your machine is CPU bound you will be happy.
However, if you find the CPU of your current MPB 13 adequate and the GPU is where you would like improvement, than this MBP 13 is a downgrade.
Take myself for example, the only time my MBP 13 shows a performance weakness is when I play a game (I have the model that was just replaced).
"Hobbled" seems to fit here because Apple decided to combine a great CPU upgrade with a GPU downgrade compared to the model it is replacing.
But you’re isolating ONE aspect of the machine to do a comparison and then making a claim that the entire machine is hobbled compared to the previous version. That is an erroneous argument.
It’s like if said that Thunderbolt as a whole was a hobbled technology compared to FireWire but then using the fact FireWire can be 4.5M in length compared to Thunderbolt’s 3M using copper.
I’m note sure if yours and saarek argument would be considered a confirmation bias, composition fallacy, both or other but it’s not a sound argument to say the 13” MBP itself is hobbled without qualifying it to refer to your needs or needs of those for a particular usage pattern.
cant speak to the current models, but when I had the opportunity to open up a few MBPs of the first unibody generation (first ones with sealed battery) to upgrade some ram, I can tell you that it is (or was with that generation anyhow) purely engineering and not marketing, you simply cant fit the GPU and fan in the current 13 inch chasie its just too thin and narrow, its pretty amazing that it can fit everything in that is in, I have never seen such tight space margins on a laptop.
That's pretty old data, a discrete GPU would most likely fit if Apple wanted to do that. The Sandy Bridge CPU and intel platform controller are MUCH smaller than the old core 2 duo and nvidia system chip that were used in the previous generation 13" MBPs. If you want to point back to a design that was done several years ago as evidence that something can't be done today then why not go back two decades more and say that it wouldn't be possible to produce ANY notebook computer. I mean just look at the size of a 1990 era desktop, how could that possibly fit?
Besides that, why would they have tried to make the previous generation's motherboard smaller than it had to be? Just so they could say, "Hey, look at all that free space that we didn't use." No, they designed it to fit the space they had with the chips sets they selected based upon performance and cost considerations.
It looks like that the battery life lasts about 5:25. I do wish Apple could bring more lightness and longer battery life into MBP. Under 2kg in weight, and ten hours of battery life would be a sweet spot for MBP.
If you find an engineer who can accomplish that, I'm sure Apple will hire him (or her) on the spot.
Bought last years' model and I knew that this would eventually happen, but having to see the leap of technology that Apple makes after having recently dropped thousands of dollars in cash on the quickly depreciating laptop makes me want to kill myself.
That's what Ebay is for. A well-kept MacBook Pro that is just a generation old will fetch a fairly decent price on Ebay. Only you can decide if it is worth selling your current MacBook Pro and pay some more $$ to get the new one.
The addition of Intel's latest-generation Sandy Bridge processors has boosted the performance of Apple's new line of MacBook Pros by between 13 percent and 53 percent faster than their predecessors.
I'm interested in seeing some h.264 encoding benchmarks.
And if there is software/ benchmark apps that support intel's new Quicksync option I read somewhere (maybe here?) that this could potentially speed up h.264 encoding dramatically. (like tenfold or some crazy numbers like that.)
I really like the $1800 15 inch, it looks sweet. just wondering if anyone can give me some idea if its any good for windows gaming? not looking for a gaming laptop, I want a high end nice professional laptop that can boot windows and play games from time to time.
are teh macbook pros with discreet graphics OK for windows games? I am particularly interested in FPS games, and I know I will be playing much Duke Nukem Forever when it arrives this summer
While not about Windows gaming, the original MacWorld article did have additional frame rate comparisons to previous Macs. That might give you an idea of the graphics performance for gaming.
It looks like that the battery life lasts about 5:25. I do wish Apple could bring more lightness and longer battery life into MBP. Under 2kg in weight, and ten hours of battery life would be a sweet spot for MBP.
I think you'd end up with the performance of the MacBook Air.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas
I'm interested in seeing some h.264 encoding benchmarks.
And if there is software/ benchmark apps that support intel's new Quicksync option I read somewhere (maybe here?) that this could potentially speed up h.264 encoding dramatically. (like tenfold or some crazy numbers like that.)
The original MacWorld article has benchmarks for encoding using Handbrake. There's a pretty good boost, but it's probably mostly due to the quad-cores. Maybe a future update the Handbrake will make better use of the new technology.
I would have expected a little more than that given Apple's 3x faster graph for Half-Life 2.
The 6490 would be about 30% slower than the 330M and the 6750 has 3x the shader processors although they are at a lower clock. Comparing clock speed, the 6750 should be over 2x the 6490.
It's a bit of a wild stretch to get 300% out of 50% expected improvement. Maybe they had a blowtorch on the 330M model so that it slowed down.
Remember this is Mac gaming we are talking about. It's slowly getting better, by right now it still sucks a lot. And I mean on performance per hardware, not just 4 year-old titles.
EDIT: Wait, where did you read that the 6490 is worse than the 330M? I know FLOPS don't tell you the whole picture, but I'll be damned if it doesn't mean enough to disprove this. The 6490 has 256 GFLOPs, the 330M has 182. That's 40% more.
That's pretty old data, a discrete GPU would most likely fit if Apple wanted to do that. The Sandy Bridge CPU and intel platform controller are MUCH smaller than the old core 2 duo and nvidia system chip that were used in the previous generation 13" MBPs. If you want to point back to a design that was done several years ago as evidence that something can't be done today then why not go back two decades more and say that it wouldn't be possible to produce ANY notebook computer. I mean just look at the size of a 1990 era desktop, how could that possibly fit?
Besides that, why would they have tried to make the previous generation's motherboard smaller than it had to be? Just so they could say, "Hey, look at all that free space that we didn't use." No, they designed it to fit the space they had with the chips sets they selected based upon performance and cost considerations.
It's not just about size - it's also about power consumption and cooling. That was the limiting factor in the 13" MBP.
This revision has clearly been all about power. The CPUs are twice as fast, the GPUs are 3x as fast, and the new Thunderbolt I/O port is the fastest port I know of. The next revision will probably be about looks with a thinner case and dropping the DVD drive.
No AACS support for Blu-ray movie playback in SL or Lion. No change in the speed of the SuperDrive since 2007, I recall correctly. That?s a pretty long stagnation. I can?t see how we can not expect Apple to depreciate the ODD with the next case change.
Very perceptive of you. I can understand why they would take the ODD out. The MAS is another indication as well (and the Software Reinstall Drive that comes with the new Airs)
As someone else stated on AI: "you won't be walking around with your laptop while burning a disc" So yes, just buy the $79 acc. if you still need an ODD.
Comments
If the overall performance is higher than before it?s hyperbolic to say it?s hobbled.
Actually it is not. Using an average to gauge a performance increase can be extremely misleading. The MBP 13 has a great CPU and it is definitely an improvement, so if what you do on your machine is CPU bound you will be happy.
However, if you find the CPU of your current MPB 13 adequate and the GPU is where you would like improvement, than this MBP 13 is a downgrade.
Take myself for example, the only time my MBP 13 shows a performance weakness is when I play a game (I have the model that was just replaced).
"Hobbled" seems to fit here because Apple decided to combine a great CPU upgrade with a GPU downgrade compared to the model it is replacing.
-kpluck
Such a shame that Apple decided to hobble the 13" MacBook Pro with the pathetic intel integrated graphics chip.
Intel didn't give them a choice.
I'm surprised the 1.83Ghz Core 2 MacBook Air outranked the 2.4Ghz Core 2 MacBook on the bench.
That is probably because the benchmark in question was an average of a bunch of tests and some of them had to do with drive performance. Since the Air has an SSD, that gave it a boost. On CPU and GPU based benchmarks the Air is slower.
-kpluck
Such a shame that Apple decided to hobble the 13" MacBook Pro with the pathetic intel integrated graphics chip.
They could easily have has the best line out ever of MacBooks, still at least the 15-17" MacBooks have everything a pro could desire.
It isn't hobbled. This is an entry level model. It's entry level model priced. GPU performance isn't worse than the previous model, and is slightly better. But the much faster system overall makes up for the lack of a separate GPU and memory.
If Apple added what you want, they would have had to charge more, and then you would be complaining about that.
The 13" model is a compromise for those who want, and need, a smaller, lighter machine, but who don't need that extra graphics performance. People who need seriously more power will buy the 15" which has it, and the larger, higher resolution screen they need with that power.
For the market the 13" is aimed at, it's plenty good enough.
Bought last years' model and I knew that this would eventually happen, but having to see the leap of technology that Apple makes after having recently dropped thousands of dollars in cash on the quickly depreciating laptop makes me want to kill myself.
Uh, it's just a computer, you know? I'm sure there are much more important things for you to kill yourself over, but they will pass as well, so you might as well stay in the land of the living, so that you can complain along with the rest of us.
And you can be sure that plenty of PC users are thinking the same thing about Sandy Bridge.
I haven't had a chance to look at GPU benchmarks. I know you and I both own the currrent 13" MBP. What do you think of the integrated graphics chip on the MBP compared to what we currently have?
I also never thought I would see a day moving foward where Apple would put out a product where they posted lower battery times. However I think Apple is rating differently now based on WIFI usage
They're using stricter testing methods. What I hate seeing is battery life given as "up to...". That says nothing at all. I'd rather see an honest number, such as we get with the iPad, and other Apple products.
We have CIPA battery rating for cameras, it's about time we get an industry applied standard for other goods as well.
They're using stricter testing methods. What I hate seeing is battery life given as "up to...". That says nothing at all. I'd rather see an honest number, such as we get with the iPad, and other Apple products.
We have CIPA battery rating for cameras, it's about time we get an industry applied standard for other goods as well.
Yeah I have seen battery life ratings "up too" 3.5 hours and know I would be lucky if I got 90 mins out of it. I agree that the iPad rating is pretty good.
While the new system was faster at "just about everything," it did fall short in playing the game Call of Duty 4, averaging 26 frames per second versus 33 frames in last year's model.
From playable to unplayable in some cases. 26FPS I'd say is playable though. For an IGP, I wouldn't say it's necessarily bad but it's a downgrade from last year. It shows how far behind Intel has been when it takes them 2 years to catch up to NVidia. If only they'd put 24 EUs in Ivy Bridge, even 20 and they'd come even with what NVidia would've had.
This is due to the use of Intel's integrated HD Graphics 3000 in the Sandy Bridge processor, while last year's model included a discrete Nvidia graphics card.
The 320M was integrated too but it was separate from the CPU die. The Intel one is combined with the CPU. Apple hasn't had a discrete GPU in the smaller pro laptops since the 12" Powerbooks.
Both the new 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros feature discrete Radeon HD 6750M graphics with 1GB of dedicated video memory that makes them display 31 percent more frames per second in Call of Duty 4.
I would have expected a little more than that given Apple's 3x faster graph for Half-Life 2.
The 6490 would be about 30% slower than the 330M and the 6750 has 3x the shader processors although they are at a lower clock. Comparing clock speed, the 6750 should be over 2x the 6490.
So: 6490 (=9600M) -- x1.5 --> 330M -- x1.5 --> 6750
It's a bit of a wild stretch to get 300% out of 50% expected improvement. Maybe they had a blowtorch on the 330M model so that it slowed down.
Such a shame that Apple decided to hobble the 13" MacBook Pro with the pathetic intel integrated graphics chip.
They could easily have has the best line out ever of MacBooks, still at least the 15-17" MacBooks have everything a pro could desire.
Apple could only let CPU performance get so far ahead before being forced to make the jump. This generations Intel graphics are better than last generations, so the gap in video performance is smaller and the gains in CPU performance are larger.
Nvidia doesn't make integrated video chipsets for the i5/i7 line so there's little Apple can do about it. Unless you can find room in the 13" MBP for discrete graphics. I'm pretty sure Intel is discontinuing Core 2 duo production as well, Apple rode Core 2 duo to the end.
Yeah I am not sure why the optical drive isn't a thing of the past by now. Nice to see you back posting.
By the way I decided to break down and get myself an MBA. I use it more now then my MBP.
Thanks. I’ll be gone again in a day.
11 or 13” MBA? I don’t mine the CPU performance in them, but the max storage will keep me away until I get a desktop as my primary machine… which isn’t likely to happen. I’ll likely stick with my current MBP with SSD and HDD until Apple revamps the lineup.
Check out other's review about MBP 15".
http://www.laptopmag.com/review/lapt...11.aspx?page=1
It looks like that the battery life lasts about 5:25. I do wish Apple could bring more lightness and longer battery life into MBP. Under 2kg in weight, and ten hours of battery life would be a sweet spot for MBP.
There tests are as informative as Apple’s testing methods. They say nothing of the sites, types or sites, size of the sites, other apps, brightness of display, power efficiency settings, type of wireless network, distance from router, internet connection speed, or page refresh times… to name a few. I’d be happy with just a small sample of those, which is something I give AnandTech credit for.
Battery Life
We never expect stellar battery life out of 15-inch notebooks, yet that's where the 15-inch MacBook Pro really stands out. On our LAPTOP Battery Test (continuous web surfing over Wi-Fi), the notebook lasted 5 hours and 25 minutes; that's an hour and a half longer than the mainstream average, and almost equal to the ultraportable average, but it's below the expected 7-hour runtime Apple quotes; we will retest this system and update the review.
Actually it is not. Using an average to gauge a performance increase can be extremely misleading. The MBP 13 has a great CPU and it is definitely an improvement, so if what you do on your machine is CPU bound you will be happy.
However, if you find the CPU of your current MPB 13 adequate and the GPU is where you would like improvement, than this MBP 13 is a downgrade.
Take myself for example, the only time my MBP 13 shows a performance weakness is when I play a game (I have the model that was just replaced).
"Hobbled" seems to fit here because Apple decided to combine a great CPU upgrade with a GPU downgrade compared to the model it is replacing.
But you’re isolating ONE aspect of the machine to do a comparison and then making a claim that the entire machine is hobbled compared to the previous version. That is an erroneous argument.
It’s like if said that Thunderbolt as a whole was a hobbled technology compared to FireWire but then using the fact FireWire can be 4.5M in length compared to Thunderbolt’s 3M using copper.
I’m note sure if yours and saarek argument would be considered a confirmation bias, composition fallacy, both or other but it’s not a sound argument to say the 13” MBP itself is hobbled without qualifying it to refer to your needs or needs of those for a particular usage pattern.
cant speak to the current models, but when I had the opportunity to open up a few MBPs of the first unibody generation (first ones with sealed battery) to upgrade some ram, I can tell you that it is (or was with that generation anyhow) purely engineering and not marketing, you simply cant fit the GPU and fan in the current 13 inch chasie its just too thin and narrow, its pretty amazing that it can fit everything in that is in, I have never seen such tight space margins on a laptop.
That's pretty old data, a discrete GPU would most likely fit if Apple wanted to do that. The Sandy Bridge CPU and intel platform controller are MUCH smaller than the old core 2 duo and nvidia system chip that were used in the previous generation 13" MBPs. If you want to point back to a design that was done several years ago as evidence that something can't be done today then why not go back two decades more and say that it wouldn't be possible to produce ANY notebook computer. I mean just look at the size of a 1990 era desktop, how could that possibly fit?
Besides that, why would they have tried to make the previous generation's motherboard smaller than it had to be? Just so they could say, "Hey, look at all that free space that we didn't use." No, they designed it to fit the space they had with the chips sets they selected based upon performance and cost considerations.
Check out other's review about MBP 15".
http://www.laptopmag.com/review/lapt...11.aspx?page=1
It looks like that the battery life lasts about 5:25. I do wish Apple could bring more lightness and longer battery life into MBP. Under 2kg in weight, and ten hours of battery life would be a sweet spot for MBP.
If you find an engineer who can accomplish that, I'm sure Apple will hire him (or her) on the spot.
Bought last years' model and I knew that this would eventually happen, but having to see the leap of technology that Apple makes after having recently dropped thousands of dollars in cash on the quickly depreciating laptop makes me want to kill myself.
That's what Ebay is for. A well-kept MacBook Pro that is just a generation old will fetch a fairly decent price on Ebay. Only you can decide if it is worth selling your current MacBook Pro and pay some more $$ to get the new one.
The addition of Intel's latest-generation Sandy Bridge processors has boosted the performance of Apple's new line of MacBook Pros by between 13 percent and 53 percent faster than their predecessors.
I'm interested in seeing some h.264 encoding benchmarks.
And if there is software/ benchmark apps that support intel's new Quicksync option I read somewhere (maybe here?) that this could potentially speed up h.264 encoding dramatically. (like tenfold or some crazy numbers like that.)
I really like the $1800 15 inch, it looks sweet. just wondering if anyone can give me some idea if its any good for windows gaming? not looking for a gaming laptop, I want a high end nice professional laptop that can boot windows and play games from time to time.
are teh macbook pros with discreet graphics OK for windows games? I am particularly interested in FPS games, and I know I will be playing much Duke Nukem Forever when it arrives this summer
While not about Windows gaming, the original MacWorld article did have additional frame rate comparisons to previous Macs. That might give you an idea of the graphics performance for gaming.
Check out other's review about MBP 15".
http://www.laptopmag.com/review/lapt...11.aspx?page=1
It looks like that the battery life lasts about 5:25. I do wish Apple could bring more lightness and longer battery life into MBP. Under 2kg in weight, and ten hours of battery life would be a sweet spot for MBP.
I think you'd end up with the performance of the MacBook Air.
I'm interested in seeing some h.264 encoding benchmarks.
And if there is software/ benchmark apps that support intel's new Quicksync option I read somewhere (maybe here?) that this could potentially speed up h.264 encoding dramatically. (like tenfold or some crazy numbers like that.)
The original MacWorld article has benchmarks for encoding using Handbrake. There's a pretty good boost, but it's probably mostly due to the quad-cores. Maybe a future update the Handbrake will make better use of the new technology.
Any tips on how to wrap a 21.5" iMac on an airplane's baggage?
I would have expected a little more than that given Apple's 3x faster graph for Half-Life 2.
The 6490 would be about 30% slower than the 330M and the 6750 has 3x the shader processors although they are at a lower clock. Comparing clock speed, the 6750 should be over 2x the 6490.
So: 6490 (=9600M) -- x1.5 --> 330M -- x1.5 --> 6750
It's a bit of a wild stretch to get 300% out of 50% expected improvement. Maybe they had a blowtorch on the 330M model so that it slowed down.
Remember this is Mac gaming we are talking about. It's slowly getting better, by right now it still sucks a lot. And I mean on performance per hardware, not just 4 year-old titles.
EDIT: Wait, where did you read that the 6490 is worse than the 330M? I know FLOPS don't tell you the whole picture, but I'll be damned if it doesn't mean enough to disprove this. The 6490 has 256 GFLOPs, the 330M has 182. That's 40% more.
That's pretty old data, a discrete GPU would most likely fit if Apple wanted to do that. The Sandy Bridge CPU and intel platform controller are MUCH smaller than the old core 2 duo and nvidia system chip that were used in the previous generation 13" MBPs. If you want to point back to a design that was done several years ago as evidence that something can't be done today then why not go back two decades more and say that it wouldn't be possible to produce ANY notebook computer. I mean just look at the size of a 1990 era desktop, how could that possibly fit?
Besides that, why would they have tried to make the previous generation's motherboard smaller than it had to be? Just so they could say, "Hey, look at all that free space that we didn't use." No, they designed it to fit the space they had with the chips sets they selected based upon performance and cost considerations.
It's not just about size - it's also about power consumption and cooling. That was the limiting factor in the 13" MBP.
No AACS support for Blu-ray movie playback in SL or Lion. No change in the speed of the SuperDrive since 2007, I recall correctly. That?s a pretty long stagnation. I can?t see how we can not expect Apple to depreciate the ODD with the next case change.
Very perceptive of you. I can understand why they would take the ODD out. The MAS is another indication as well (and the Software Reinstall Drive that comes with the new Airs)
As someone else stated on AI: "you won't be walking around with your laptop while burning a disc" So yes, just buy the $79 acc. if you still need an ODD.