apple's prices have now reclaimed their 'way more than PCs' levels of like 5 years ago. it's a shame but true.
Apple is making more money per machine on this generation than before and not a cent of that price reduction is reflected in better specs or lower prices. instead they charge us 19$ for the fricking remote.
LAME.
plus, why not have BTO options with the biggest baddest HDs money can buy? Apple charges $1/gb for their HD upgrades. What a joke. the true cost of HD capacity is what? .30$ per GB? maybe less?
also, the speed increases since Core2Duos came out have been minor at best. yet more lameness. And what about making the MBP HD easier to swap? WTF?
Not directly aimed at you, but more at lots of people in this topic, but still.
You have to compare apples with aplles (heheh).
Configure a Sony Vaio or Dell XPS M1330 comparable to the Macbook and it's not THAT much more expensive you'll see, cheaper even depending on your needs. Sure, a 15 inch inspiron with all the base stuff made of cheap plastic will cost you less, but you can't compare it imo, I've used it in real life and it's just not "nice" to use, as with most sub $1000 notebooks.
Also, you're complaining about speed, but Apple uses the fastest stuff out there that'll fit in a 1 inch thick laptop.
That being said, how would a 15 inch, 1280x800 Macbook with a 1.6-1.8 GHz processor, 120gig HD, 1 gig RAM, Bluetooth as a BTO for say $800-$900 look in Apple's lineup? With those specs and at that pricepoint you'll convince a ton of casual computer users to go apple, without comprimising overall build and parts quality. For 70% of people out there 1.6 is fast enough, and 13inch is too small cause they can't read the tiny letters.
You might argue it'd look weird compared to the regular MB, but look at Dell's lineup, XPS buyers ain't complaingin about the cheaper Inspiron 1525...
I am so happy. The MacBook Pro will be my first Mac. My Gateway laptop has an 800 Mhz Intel Celeron processor and a screen that doesn't work (that is attached to a 17" CRT monitor). I was hoping for a redesign, but I am not going to wait anymore. If I were getting a PC, I would not wait for a redesign, so I will not do it here.
Now, the only question is this: Should I get the base model or the middle model?
It seems to all boil down to the video memory (256MB vs. 512MB)
I plan to keep the computer for 4-5 years. I will be doing basic applications. I plan to do use music notation software (Finale with the processor/memory hog Garritan Personal Orchestra). If I do video stuff, it will be basic iMovie kind of stuff. I do plan to play some games, but they will mostly be strategy games like Civilization, Roller Coster Tycoon, Age of Empires, etc. However, if I do decide to pick up a heavier game, I want it to work well. Do you think getting the middle model with 512 MB of video memory is worth it for me?
What would you buy in my situation.
Strategy games are not that GPU-heavy most of the time, also, in terms of future-proofing, supporte rendering technologies is more important than amount of VRAM, since both cards have the same GPU, I'd go for the 256MB version. It's not like OSX or whatever it's called byt then's GUI will need 512MB of dedicated VRAM in 4 years...
While HD may be pointless, those buying bluray disks to watch on their giant screen at home still want to be able to watch them on the computer as well (and not have to buy movies twice).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
HD is pointless on a 17" screen.
So it's pointless to have more than VGA resolution (640x480) on a 17" screen? That's what Standard Definition is.
I am so happy. The MacBook Pro will be my first Mac. My Gateway laptop has an 800 Mhz Intel Celeron processor and a screen that doesn't work (that is attached to a 17" CRT monitor). I was hoping for a redesign, but I am not going to wait anymore. If I were getting a PC, I would not wait for a redesign, so I will not do it here.
Now, the only question is this: Should I get the base model or the middle model?
It seems to all boil down to the video memory (256MB vs. 512MB)
I plan to keep the computer for 4-5 years. I will be doing basic applications. I plan to do use music notation software (Finale with the processor/memory hog Garritan Personal Orchestra). If I do video stuff, it will be basic iMovie kind of stuff. I do plan to play some games, but they will mostly be strategy games like Civilization, Roller Coster Tycoon, Age of Empires, etc. However, if I do decide to pick up a heavier game, I want it to work well. Do you think getting the middle model with 512 MB of video memory is worth it for me?
What would you buy in my situation.
Assuming you don't need the 17", (as someone already pointed out) I'd personally not spend an extra $500 for .1 Ghz extra processing 'power' and 50 extra gigs of HD space.
Sounds like you work with some fairly big files, but I'd have a big honkin' fireware HD at home both for Time Machine backups and for storage.
Not sure how valuable the extra video memory is for the kind of iMovie stuff you do.
lol true it is on the larger side but theres still the lighter fz series and even dells can be configured to ship with blueray drives! My point is that although I am a big apple fan I cant justify spending that much cash on one when I could have a much better spec pc at the same price! It seems like apple are playing catch up with this update and theres no good reason why it shouldn't have included a blueray option hdmi and the larger trackpad from the air, this is the pro after all!
I can see your point, but then again, you can wait forever for the next great feature to be added to a platform.
But if you look at it from a usability stand-point, regardless of the specs, what platform gives you all the great things that is the Mac along with XP/Vista compatibility? And run both OS platforms simultaniously using virtual-machine technology?
Having said the above, it may be possible the Penryn/Centrino 2 (aka Montevina) refresh (or completely new MBP) may include the "UltraDrive" (aka Blu-ray). Indeed, if traditional product schedules are observed, then release of this product will be around the next MacWorld Expo. But who knows, it could be sooner than we all expect.
I can see your point, but then again, you can wait forever for the next great feature to be added to a platform.
But if you look at it from a usability stand-point, regardless of the specs, what platform gives you all the great things that is the Mac along with XP/Vista compatibility? And run both OS platforms simultaniously using virtual-machine technology?
Having said the above, it may be possible the Penryn/Centrino 2 (aka Montevina) refresh (or completely new MBP) may include the "UltraDrive" (aka Blu-ray). Indeed, if traditional product schedules are observed, then release of this product will be around the next MacWorld Expo. But who knows, it could be sooner than we all expect.
Now, the only question is this: Should I get the base model or the middle model?
It seems to all boil down to the video memory (256MB vs. 512MB)
I plan to keep the computer for 4-5 years. I will be doing basic applications. I plan to do use music notation software (Finale with the processor/memory hog Garritan Personal Orchestra). If I do video stuff, it will be basic iMovie kind of stuff. I do plan to play some games, but they will mostly be strategy games like Civilization, Roller Coster Tycoon, Age of Empires, etc. However, if I do decide to pick up a heavier game, I want it to work well. Do you think getting the middle model with 512 MB of video memory is worth it for me?
What would you buy in my situation.
I'm pondering the same two options, but my "heavy use" application will be Aperture. The middle option also has twice the L2 cache, although I don't know the performance boost that provides. The extra 50 GB disk space and the 0.1 increase in CPU speed are non-factors, so the $500 seems steep for the extra VRAM and L2 cache.
Aperture would probably tax the video card more than the applications you listed, so the 512 MB VRAM would definitely benefit. But even with that, right now I'm leaning towards the low-end model and maxing out the RAM to 4 GB ($100 from 3rd party vendor). It might not give Aperture the same kick as the incrased VRAM, but it would benefit overall system performace, especially since I normally have more than on app open at any given time.
Firstly, I was wondering how long it would take for this to happen.
(snip)
Unfortunately, this is true of a lot of Apple's products. How long are we going to have to wait on a refresh of the Cinema Display family. It's unbelievably out of date and over priced. What about the Mac mini?
Secondly with regards to the face lift which didn't happen ? Apple has to make the Air look as attractive as possible in comparison to the other notebooks ? because the Air MUST offer them higher margins. If Apple gave their other notebooks a face lift, and they looked as good as the Air, nobody in their right mind would buy the Air at it's current price.
Good points and ever since Apple joined the Intel camp, they had to follow Intel's road map and schedule like any other PC and notebook manufacturer.
For example, based on past evidence, I don't think Apple wanted to release the MacBook Air with the Merom based CPU. I believe they wanted Penryn, but due to delays in Intel's 45nm manufacturing process, both Penryn CPUs and Centrino 2 (aka Montevino) mobile chipset screwed up the release schedule. Along with everything else in Apple's computer line.
So, let's admit it, Apple is doing some damage control here. Indeed, I expect Apple to be back on track by the next Mac Expo. In the meantime, let's continue to see what Apple springs on us on Tuesdays.
I am going to go with the base model. If I can somewhat function with a 2002 Gateway notebook with an 800Mhz processor, I think the base Macbook Pro will work. Now, I'm off to the Apple store to compare glossy vs. regular screens.
Then MACMALL HERE I COME!!!! FREE PARALLELS REBATE and $70 EPSON PRINTER REBATE!!!
I am going to go with the base model. If I can somewhat function with a 2002 Gateway notebook with an 800Mhz processor, I think the base Macbook Pro will work. Now, I'm off to the Apple store to compare glossy vs. regular screens.
Then MACMALL HERE I COME!!!! FREE PARALLELS REBATE and $70 EPSON PRINTER REBATE!!!
Keep in mind that the $70 on an Epson will get eaten up in ink cartridges.
If you really need a printer, think something like Cannon where you can at least replace just color tanks that run out, and not have to replace an entire cartridge just because one color runs out.
But how fun. My yellow/blue carts runneth low in envy.
I'm pondering the same two options, but my "heavy use" application will be Aperture. The middle option also has twice the L2 cache, although I don't know the performance boost that provides. The extra 50 GB disk space and the 0.1 increase in CPU speed are non-factors, so the $500 seems steep for the extra VRAM and L2 cache.
Well, from a theoritcal point of view, 6 vs 3 MB cache is a very minimal speed bump for most apps.
I'm pretty sure certain types of apps do benefit from extra cache though, but I have no idea which ones. I suppose adding an effect to a big photo in photoshop is pretty cache-heavy, but I'm not sure.
For general computing usage, let's say if 3 MB cache gives you a 96% hitrate (probability next instruction needed will be in cache), where 6Mb will give you 97.5%. These aren't real numbers, just making 'em up to make the principle clear.
If you're adding a certain filter to say a 10MB picture however, I can imagine you'll benefit pretty well from the larger cache, but again, I don't know anything about photo processing and stuff yet so I'm not sure.
No, just saying that on any screen that small, you just don't see the HD 'presence' that differentiates HD content. Diminishing returns.
I don't know what the word "presence" is supposed to mean. Resolution is resolution. The only downside I can see is having to convert 720 or 1080 lines to this squirrelly resolution on the MBP (1680x1050 is it?) That means at 720, roundoff error would give you 45 stripes down the screen, whereas 1080 would give you 105. Maybe 105 is narrow enough that it wouldn't wander off far enough in the width of a stripe to be noticeable, but 45 will be. All this is assuming you're using the middle 90% of your 10x16 screen to watch 9x16 video. I don't know if you can chop the ends of the picture off and watch it full height, but if you can, that's 70 and 30 stripes respectively. 30 is going to be very noticeable! In this day and age, if 10x16 screens are the standard, they should be either 1280x800, to display 720p in native resolution, or 1920x1200, to display 1080p in native resolution. Any other gotch-eyed resolution and you're just recreating those cheap 768-line LCD TVs with the 24 broad stripes across every picture due to roundoff error.
I'm pondering the same two options, but my "heavy use" application will be Aperture. The middle option also has twice the L2 cache, although I don't know the performance boost that provides. The extra 50 GB disk space and the 0.1 increase in CPU speed are non-factors, so the $500 seems steep for the extra VRAM and L2 cache.
Aperture would probably tax the video card more than the applications you listed, so the 512 MB VRAM would definitely benefit. But even with that, right now I'm leaning towards the low-end model and maxing out the RAM to 4 GB ($100 from 3rd party vendor). It might not give Aperture the same kick as the incrased VRAM, but it would benefit overall system performace, especially since I normally have more than on app open at any given time.
Personally, I'm going for the middle model because I'll be using 3D intensive applications and the extra VRAM could be useful.
Whether you choose a lower or higher CPU really doesn't matter. So long as it is a 'Penryn' processor. This is because this new CPU has the SSE4 extensions. And when used with software that can take advantage of these extensions, you should expect significantly better performance than the previous 'Merom' processor based MBPs.
If I were you, and the use of the MBP is 90% work and 10% play, 256MB VRAM is probably sufficient and I'd use part of the $500 savings to purchase AppleCare and a case.
I'm a bit confused. I believe the Penryn has a front side bus at 800mHz. Why are they shipping with 667mHz pc5300 ram? Wouldn't they benefit from pc6400 800mHz RAM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
FSB is quad data rate, so 800MHz is actually 4*200MHz
RAM is double data rate, 667MHz is actually 2*333MHz
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
333MHz is faster than 200MHz
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
so memory is faster than the FSB.
Wrong. You even said above that FSB is "quad rate" and RAM is "double rate". There's no point comparing the base clock speeds, because the busses work in different ways. The FSB has a higher bandwidth (in bits/second).
The correct answer to altacleets's question is:
FSB and the memory bus are two different things.
The FSB connects the processor to the motherboard northbridge, and the northbridge connects to RAM on the memory bus. The maximum speed the northbridge supports is 667 MHz DDR2 RAM. 800 MHz DDR2 RAM would be beneficial, if only the northbridge supported it.
No, just saying that on any screen that small, you just don't see the HD 'presence' that differentiates HD content. Diminishing returns.
If you mean from across a living room, yes, at arm's length absolutely not. The difference between HD and SD was clearly visible to me on a 15" Apple notebook. Go download an Apple Quicktime HD movie, make an iPod resolution version of it and play both on a notebook.
Keep in mind that the $70 on an Epson will get eaten up in ink cartridges.
If you really need a printer, think something like Cannon where you can at least replace just color tanks that run out, and not have to replace an entire cartridge just because one color runs out.
But how fun. My yellow/blue carts runneth low in envy.
Actually, I was looking at the Epson CX9400 which have individual cartridges.
I was wondering is the 2.6 a Penryn also? I know its an upcharge...but wanted to make sure since it says nothing on the spec sheet about the 6 mb cache with the 2.6?
If I had the money, what would be the difference between the 2.5 and 2.6?
I can see your point, but then again, you can wait forever for the next great feature to be added to a platform.
But if you look at it from a usability stand-point, regardless of the specs, what platform gives you all the great things that is the Mac along with XP/Vista compatibility? And run both OS platforms simultaniously using virtual-machine technology?
Having said the above, it may be possible the Penryn/Centrino 2 (aka Montevina) refresh (or completely new MBP) may include the "UltraDrive" (aka Blu-ray). Indeed, if traditional product schedules are observed, then release of this product will be around the next MacWorld Expo. But who knows, it could be sooner than we all expect.
YipYipYipee
True of course a mbp comes with osx and great build quality so you can't really compare it to a dell or w/e I guess what I was trying to get as was the fact that alot of people have been holding off upgrading their laptops for the new macbook to come out and I personaly am a little underwhelmed and aren't going to upgrade. I would expect apples mac book pro to have all the latest components available (even if there at a high premium) and considering you can get a slot loading bluray drive in a dell why not in the new mbp? I am a big hd fan and can't justify splashing 2k on a macine without it atm! The only question now is whether to give in to the vaio or try and hold on till macworld and the chance of a real update!
Actually, I was looking at the Epson CX9400 which have individual cartridges.
That sort of thing helps, but ink is simply expensive. It probably helps to look up some site that tests printers to see what's the most reasonable printer in terms of cost per page. In the end, the cheapest page is still one that's not printed.
Comments
apple's prices have now reclaimed their 'way more than PCs' levels of like 5 years ago. it's a shame but true.
Apple is making more money per machine on this generation than before and not a cent of that price reduction is reflected in better specs or lower prices. instead they charge us 19$ for the fricking remote.
LAME.
plus, why not have BTO options with the biggest baddest HDs money can buy? Apple charges $1/gb for their HD upgrades. What a joke. the true cost of HD capacity is what? .30$ per GB? maybe less?
also, the speed increases since Core2Duos came out have been minor at best. yet more lameness. And what about making the MBP HD easier to swap? WTF?
Not directly aimed at you, but more at lots of people in this topic, but still.
You have to compare apples with aplles (heheh).
Configure a Sony Vaio or Dell XPS M1330 comparable to the Macbook and it's not THAT much more expensive you'll see, cheaper even depending on your needs. Sure, a 15 inch inspiron with all the base stuff made of cheap plastic will cost you less, but you can't compare it imo, I've used it in real life and it's just not "nice" to use, as with most sub $1000 notebooks.
Also, you're complaining about speed, but Apple uses the fastest stuff out there that'll fit in a 1 inch thick laptop.
That being said, how would a 15 inch, 1280x800 Macbook with a 1.6-1.8 GHz processor, 120gig HD, 1 gig RAM, Bluetooth as a BTO for say $800-$900 look in Apple's lineup? With those specs and at that pricepoint you'll convince a ton of casual computer users to go apple, without comprimising overall build and parts quality. For 70% of people out there 1.6 is fast enough, and 13inch is too small cause they can't read the tiny letters.
You might argue it'd look weird compared to the regular MB, but look at Dell's lineup, XPS buyers ain't complaingin about the cheaper Inspiron 1525...
I am so happy. The MacBook Pro will be my first Mac. My Gateway laptop has an 800 Mhz Intel Celeron processor and a screen that doesn't work (that is attached to a 17" CRT monitor). I was hoping for a redesign, but I am not going to wait anymore. If I were getting a PC, I would not wait for a redesign, so I will not do it here.
Now, the only question is this: Should I get the base model or the middle model?
It seems to all boil down to the video memory (256MB vs. 512MB)
I plan to keep the computer for 4-5 years. I will be doing basic applications. I plan to do use music notation software (Finale with the processor/memory hog Garritan Personal Orchestra). If I do video stuff, it will be basic iMovie kind of stuff. I do plan to play some games, but they will mostly be strategy games like Civilization, Roller Coster Tycoon, Age of Empires, etc. However, if I do decide to pick up a heavier game, I want it to work well. Do you think getting the middle model with 512 MB of video memory is worth it for me?
What would you buy in my situation.
Strategy games are not that GPU-heavy most of the time, also, in terms of future-proofing, supporte rendering technologies is more important than amount of VRAM, since both cards have the same GPU, I'd go for the 256MB version. It's not like OSX or whatever it's called byt then's GUI will need 512MB of dedicated VRAM in 4 years...
While HD may be pointless, those buying bluray disks to watch on their giant screen at home still want to be able to watch them on the computer as well (and not have to buy movies twice).
HD is pointless on a 17" screen.
So it's pointless to have more than VGA resolution (640x480) on a 17" screen? That's what Standard Definition is.
I am so happy. The MacBook Pro will be my first Mac. My Gateway laptop has an 800 Mhz Intel Celeron processor and a screen that doesn't work (that is attached to a 17" CRT monitor). I was hoping for a redesign, but I am not going to wait anymore. If I were getting a PC, I would not wait for a redesign, so I will not do it here.
Now, the only question is this: Should I get the base model or the middle model?
It seems to all boil down to the video memory (256MB vs. 512MB)
I plan to keep the computer for 4-5 years. I will be doing basic applications. I plan to do use music notation software (Finale with the processor/memory hog Garritan Personal Orchestra). If I do video stuff, it will be basic iMovie kind of stuff. I do plan to play some games, but they will mostly be strategy games like Civilization, Roller Coster Tycoon, Age of Empires, etc. However, if I do decide to pick up a heavier game, I want it to work well. Do you think getting the middle model with 512 MB of video memory is worth it for me?
What would you buy in my situation.
Assuming you don't need the 17", (as someone already pointed out) I'd personally not spend an extra $500 for .1 Ghz extra processing 'power' and 50 extra gigs of HD space.
Sounds like you work with some fairly big files, but I'd have a big honkin' fireware HD at home both for Time Machine backups and for storage.
Not sure how valuable the extra video memory is for the kind of iMovie stuff you do.
I'd spend the extra $500 on Logic Studio instead.
lol true it is on the larger side but theres still the lighter fz series and even dells can be configured to ship with blueray drives! My point is that although I am a big apple fan I cant justify spending that much cash on one when I could have a much better spec pc at the same price! It seems like apple are playing catch up with this update and theres no good reason why it shouldn't have included a blueray option hdmi and the larger trackpad from the air, this is the pro after all!
I can see your point, but then again, you can wait forever for the next great feature to be added to a platform.
But if you look at it from a usability stand-point, regardless of the specs, what platform gives you all the great things that is the Mac along with XP/Vista compatibility? And run both OS platforms simultaniously using virtual-machine technology?
Having said the above, it may be possible the Penryn/Centrino 2 (aka Montevina) refresh (or completely new MBP) may include the "UltraDrive" (aka Blu-ray). Indeed, if traditional product schedules are observed, then release of this product will be around the next MacWorld Expo. But who knows, it could be sooner than we all expect.
YipYipYipee
I can see your point, but then again, you can wait forever for the next great feature to be added to a platform.
But if you look at it from a usability stand-point, regardless of the specs, what platform gives you all the great things that is the Mac along with XP/Vista compatibility? And run both OS platforms simultaniously using virtual-machine technology?
Having said the above, it may be possible the Penryn/Centrino 2 (aka Montevina) refresh (or completely new MBP) may include the "UltraDrive" (aka Blu-ray). Indeed, if traditional product schedules are observed, then release of this product will be around the next MacWorld Expo. But who knows, it could be sooner than we all expect.
YipYipYipee
Yippe, your a fucknut!
So it's pointless to have more than VGA resolution (640x480) on a 17" screen? That's what Standard Definition is.
No, just saying that on any screen that small, you just don't see the HD 'presence' that differentiates HD content. Diminishing returns.
...
Now, the only question is this: Should I get the base model or the middle model?
It seems to all boil down to the video memory (256MB vs. 512MB)
I plan to keep the computer for 4-5 years. I will be doing basic applications. I plan to do use music notation software (Finale with the processor/memory hog Garritan Personal Orchestra). If I do video stuff, it will be basic iMovie kind of stuff. I do plan to play some games, but they will mostly be strategy games like Civilization, Roller Coster Tycoon, Age of Empires, etc. However, if I do decide to pick up a heavier game, I want it to work well. Do you think getting the middle model with 512 MB of video memory is worth it for me?
What would you buy in my situation.
I'm pondering the same two options, but my "heavy use" application will be Aperture. The middle option also has twice the L2 cache, although I don't know the performance boost that provides. The extra 50 GB disk space and the 0.1 increase in CPU speed are non-factors, so the $500 seems steep for the extra VRAM and L2 cache.
Aperture would probably tax the video card more than the applications you listed, so the 512 MB VRAM would definitely benefit. But even with that, right now I'm leaning towards the low-end model and maxing out the RAM to 4 GB ($100 from 3rd party vendor). It might not give Aperture the same kick as the incrased VRAM, but it would benefit overall system performace, especially since I normally have more than on app open at any given time.
Two points
Firstly, I was wondering how long it would take for this to happen.
(snip)
Unfortunately, this is true of a lot of Apple's products. How long are we going to have to wait on a refresh of the Cinema Display family. It's unbelievably out of date and over priced. What about the Mac mini?
Secondly with regards to the face lift which didn't happen ? Apple has to make the Air look as attractive as possible in comparison to the other notebooks ? because the Air MUST offer them higher margins. If Apple gave their other notebooks a face lift, and they looked as good as the Air, nobody in their right mind would buy the Air at it's current price.
Good points and ever since Apple joined the Intel camp, they had to follow Intel's road map and schedule like any other PC and notebook manufacturer.
For example, based on past evidence, I don't think Apple wanted to release the MacBook Air with the Merom based CPU. I believe they wanted Penryn, but due to delays in Intel's 45nm manufacturing process, both Penryn CPUs and Centrino 2 (aka Montevino) mobile chipset screwed up the release schedule. Along with everything else in Apple's computer line.
So, let's admit it, Apple is doing some damage control here. Indeed, I expect Apple to be back on track by the next Mac Expo. In the meantime, let's continue to see what Apple springs on us on Tuesdays.
YipYipYipee
Then MACMALL HERE I COME!!!! FREE PARALLELS REBATE and $70 EPSON PRINTER REBATE!!!
I am going to go with the base model. If I can somewhat function with a 2002 Gateway notebook with an 800Mhz processor, I think the base Macbook Pro will work. Now, I'm off to the Apple store to compare glossy vs. regular screens.
Then MACMALL HERE I COME!!!! FREE PARALLELS REBATE and $70 EPSON PRINTER REBATE!!!
Keep in mind that the $70 on an Epson will get eaten up in ink cartridges.
If you really need a printer, think something like Cannon where you can at least replace just color tanks that run out, and not have to replace an entire cartridge just because one color runs out.
But how fun. My yellow/blue carts runneth low in envy.
I'm pondering the same two options, but my "heavy use" application will be Aperture. The middle option also has twice the L2 cache, although I don't know the performance boost that provides. The extra 50 GB disk space and the 0.1 increase in CPU speed are non-factors, so the $500 seems steep for the extra VRAM and L2 cache.
Well, from a theoritcal point of view, 6 vs 3 MB cache is a very minimal speed bump for most apps.
I'm pretty sure certain types of apps do benefit from extra cache though, but I have no idea which ones. I suppose adding an effect to a big photo in photoshop is pretty cache-heavy, but I'm not sure.
For general computing usage, let's say if 3 MB cache gives you a 96% hitrate (probability next instruction needed will be in cache), where 6Mb will give you 97.5%. These aren't real numbers, just making 'em up to make the principle clear.
If you're adding a certain filter to say a 10MB picture however, I can imagine you'll benefit pretty well from the larger cache, but again, I don't know anything about photo processing and stuff yet so I'm not sure.
No, just saying that on any screen that small, you just don't see the HD 'presence' that differentiates HD content. Diminishing returns.
I don't know what the word "presence" is supposed to mean. Resolution is resolution. The only downside I can see is having to convert 720 or 1080 lines to this squirrelly resolution on the MBP (1680x1050 is it?) That means at 720, roundoff error would give you 45 stripes down the screen, whereas 1080 would give you 105. Maybe 105 is narrow enough that it wouldn't wander off far enough in the width of a stripe to be noticeable, but 45 will be. All this is assuming you're using the middle 90% of your 10x16 screen to watch 9x16 video. I don't know if you can chop the ends of the picture off and watch it full height, but if you can, that's 70 and 30 stripes respectively. 30 is going to be very noticeable! In this day and age, if 10x16 screens are the standard, they should be either 1280x800, to display 720p in native resolution, or 1920x1200, to display 1080p in native resolution. Any other gotch-eyed resolution and you're just recreating those cheap 768-line LCD TVs with the 24 broad stripes across every picture due to roundoff error.
I'm pondering the same two options, but my "heavy use" application will be Aperture. The middle option also has twice the L2 cache, although I don't know the performance boost that provides. The extra 50 GB disk space and the 0.1 increase in CPU speed are non-factors, so the $500 seems steep for the extra VRAM and L2 cache.
Aperture would probably tax the video card more than the applications you listed, so the 512 MB VRAM would definitely benefit. But even with that, right now I'm leaning towards the low-end model and maxing out the RAM to 4 GB ($100 from 3rd party vendor). It might not give Aperture the same kick as the incrased VRAM, but it would benefit overall system performace, especially since I normally have more than on app open at any given time.
Personally, I'm going for the middle model because I'll be using 3D intensive applications and the extra VRAM could be useful.
Whether you choose a lower or higher CPU really doesn't matter. So long as it is a 'Penryn' processor. This is because this new CPU has the SSE4 extensions. And when used with software that can take advantage of these extensions, you should expect significantly better performance than the previous 'Merom' processor based MBPs.
If I were you, and the use of the MBP is 90% work and 10% play, 256MB VRAM is probably sufficient and I'd use part of the $500 savings to purchase AppleCare and a case.
YipYipYipee
I'm a bit confused. I believe the Penryn has a front side bus at 800mHz. Why are they shipping with 667mHz pc5300 ram? Wouldn't they benefit from pc6400 800mHz RAM?
FSB is quad data rate, so 800MHz is actually 4*200MHz
RAM is double data rate, 667MHz is actually 2*333MHz
Correct.
333MHz is faster than 200MHz
Correct.
so memory is faster than the FSB.
Wrong. You even said above that FSB is "quad rate" and RAM is "double rate". There's no point comparing the base clock speeds, because the busses work in different ways. The FSB has a higher bandwidth (in bits/second).
The correct answer to altacleets's question is:
FSB and the memory bus are two different things.
The FSB connects the processor to the motherboard northbridge, and the northbridge connects to RAM on the memory bus. The maximum speed the northbridge supports is 667 MHz DDR2 RAM. 800 MHz DDR2 RAM would be beneficial, if only the northbridge supported it.
No, just saying that on any screen that small, you just don't see the HD 'presence' that differentiates HD content. Diminishing returns.
If you mean from across a living room, yes, at arm's length absolutely not. The difference between HD and SD was clearly visible to me on a 15" Apple notebook. Go download an Apple Quicktime HD movie, make an iPod resolution version of it and play both on a notebook.
Keep in mind that the $70 on an Epson will get eaten up in ink cartridges.
If you really need a printer, think something like Cannon where you can at least replace just color tanks that run out, and not have to replace an entire cartridge just because one color runs out.
But how fun. My yellow/blue carts runneth low in envy.
Actually, I was looking at the Epson CX9400 which have individual cartridges.
If I had the money, what would be the difference between the 2.5 and 2.6?
Thanks for your help
GB
I can see your point, but then again, you can wait forever for the next great feature to be added to a platform.
But if you look at it from a usability stand-point, regardless of the specs, what platform gives you all the great things that is the Mac along with XP/Vista compatibility? And run both OS platforms simultaniously using virtual-machine technology?
Having said the above, it may be possible the Penryn/Centrino 2 (aka Montevina) refresh (or completely new MBP) may include the "UltraDrive" (aka Blu-ray). Indeed, if traditional product schedules are observed, then release of this product will be around the next MacWorld Expo. But who knows, it could be sooner than we all expect.
YipYipYipee
True of course a mbp comes with osx and great build quality so you can't really compare it to a dell or w/e I guess what I was trying to get as was the fact that alot of people have been holding off upgrading their laptops for the new macbook to come out and I personaly am a little underwhelmed and aren't going to upgrade. I would expect apples mac book pro to have all the latest components available (even if there at a high premium) and considering you can get a slot loading bluray drive in a dell why not in the new mbp? I am a big hd fan and can't justify splashing 2k on a macine without it atm! The only question now is whether to give in to the vaio or try and hold on till macworld and the chance of a real update!
Actually, I was looking at the Epson CX9400 which have individual cartridges.
That sort of thing helps, but ink is simply expensive. It probably helps to look up some site that tests printers to see what's the most reasonable printer in terms of cost per page. In the end, the cheapest page is still one that's not printed.