Yeah but my guess would be because its alot easier to change the new logo in the store, whereas for the Mac page, theyd have to redo the whole macbook pro info page and that icon thing. Why do that if an update could be in (possibly, but probably not) two days?
I'm looking for someone to prove me wrong on the following:
Since the 9600M GT, what most Mac users are expecting in the new MBPs (a pathetic card for the price of a MBP) is a die shrunk 8700M GT, which is a card hotter than even the 8800M GTX, and is also 65nm as opposed to ATI's 55nm cards, it will actually run fairly hot.
Hotter than the 55nm ATI HD 3850, which also happens to be 2x faster than a 9600M GT and have a 256bit memory interface rather than a 128bit one.
In which case, why does anybody at all think we will get a 9600M GT?
And why isn't the Mobility HD 3850 the most likely candidate?
I'm looking for someone to prove me wrong on the following:
Since the 9600M GT, what most Mac users are expecting in the new MBPs (a pathetic card for the price of a MBP) is a die shrunk 8700M GT, which is a card hotter than even the 8800M GTX, and is also 65nm as opposed to ATI's 55nm cards, it will actually run fairly hot.
Hotter than the 55nm ATI HD 3850, which also happens to be 2x faster than a 9600M GT and have a 256bit memory interface rather than a 128bit one.
In which case, why does anybody at all think we will get a 9600M GT?
And why isn't the Mobility HD 3850 the most likely candidate?
The 8700M GT is not hotter than the 8800M GTS, or the Mobility HD 3850 for that matter. Neither the 8800M GTS nor the HD 3850 is a realistic proposition for the Macbook Pro's thin aluminum body and low-RPM fans.
Also, nobody knows what the TDP of a 3850 is yet, all we know is that it's at the high end of the mid range and it's 55nm. The 9600M GT is at the low end of the mid range but it's 65nm. These are the only concrete, heat related stats we have to compare, in which case, the 3850 does not at all look impractical.
Whether or not a card is possible in a MBP is not determined by whether or not it sucks. Just because the 3850 isn't garbage doesn't mean it won't be fine in a MBP. 17" anyway.
Maybe it'll be BTO like the 8800M GTS in the new iMacs.
Also, nobody knows what the TDP of a 3850 is yet, all we know is that it's at the high end of the mid range and it's 55nm. The 9600M GT is at the low end of the mid range but it's 65nm. These are the only concrete, heat related stats we have to compare, in which case, the 3850 does not at all look impractical.
Whether or not a card is possible in a MBP is not determined by whether or not it sucks. Just because the 3850 isn't garbage doesn't mean it won't be fine in a MBP. 17" anyway.
Maybe it'll be BTO like the 8800M GTS in the new iMacs.
I didn't say anything about whether or not the 3850 sucks. It doesn't suck, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.
Then show me the evidence that suggests it's not possible to put a 3850 in a MBP, at least the 17". The only relevant stat we know is the fabrication process and that's smaller than the 9600M GT, a big indicator of heat output.
Then show me the evidence that suggests it's not possible to put a 3850 in a MBP, at least the 17". The only relevant stat we know is the fabrication process and that's smaller than the 9600M GT, a big indicator of heat output.
You're expecting a miracle out of the smaller manufacturing process. For comparison purposes, the Geforce 8700M GT, at 80nm, has a 29W TDP. The 9600M GT with the same specs but 65nm has a 23W TDP.
The Mobility Radeon HD 3850 isn't available yet so I can't find its TDP, but the desktop HD 3850 is 95W. The only meaningful difference between the two is clock speed. I can see AMD cutting the 95W figure in half by taking top binned parts and underclocking them, but no more than that.
The Macbook Pro is a rail-thin laptop with slow-spinning fans. It is not going to take a high-end GPU.
Agreed. The price/performance ratio on all of Apple's product (mini doesn't count) is great, but on the MBP, it's utterly dire, largely thanks to the ludicrous obsession with keeping it 1" thick.
As I have said, and others have said many times, Apple would be better dumping the Pro moniker based solely on the screen size. Instead they should differentiate pro vs. consumer on graphics cards vs. integrated graphics and other offerings like BluRay, 7,200 RPM drives, etc. Come to think of it you don't need a graphics card to run Final Cut Pro well on a MacBook. Sure, you may need it for the entire Studio, which includes Motion that needs a graphics card, but seriously...is there really a need to spurn consumers that want a 17-inch MacBook but don't need the top of the line Intel processor and ATi/nVidea graphics?
One thing I know for sure is that there are a hell of a lot of guys going to college who won't go with a MBP because it doesn't offer good enough graphics performance.
People like to shrug off hardcore gamers, but the video games industry generates more cash than both the music industry and the movie industry. Hardcore gamers are a large minority amongst consumers nowadays, they will pay if you provide, and they are one of the only areas of the market Apple isn't enticing right now.
What is wrong with a wedged shape ?. It is clear that unless they come up with some form of advanced cooling, making things any thinner is going to compromise both performance and battery life. Air cooling is so so low tech, people.
Comments
you got my hopes up, sadly, but I don't think it'll be until end of July, or sometime in August...
Since the 9600M GT, what most Mac users are expecting in the new MBPs (a pathetic card for the price of a MBP) is a die shrunk 8700M GT, which is a card hotter than even the 8800M GTX, and is also 65nm as opposed to ATI's 55nm cards, it will actually run fairly hot.
Hotter than the 55nm ATI HD 3850, which also happens to be 2x faster than a 9600M GT and have a 256bit memory interface rather than a 128bit one.
In which case, why does anybody at all think we will get a 9600M GT?
And why isn't the Mobility HD 3850 the most likely candidate?
I'm looking for someone to prove me wrong on the following:
Since the 9600M GT, what most Mac users are expecting in the new MBPs (a pathetic card for the price of a MBP) is a die shrunk 8700M GT, which is a card hotter than even the 8800M GTX, and is also 65nm as opposed to ATI's 55nm cards, it will actually run fairly hot.
Hotter than the 55nm ATI HD 3850, which also happens to be 2x faster than a 9600M GT and have a 256bit memory interface rather than a 128bit one.
In which case, why does anybody at all think we will get a 9600M GT?
And why isn't the Mobility HD 3850 the most likely candidate?
The 8700M GT is not hotter than the 8800M GTS, or the Mobility HD 3850 for that matter. Neither the 8800M GTS nor the HD 3850 is a realistic proposition for the Macbook Pro's thin aluminum body and low-RPM fans.
Heh. Maybe in the 17".
Also, nobody knows what the TDP of a 3850 is yet, all we know is that it's at the high end of the mid range and it's 55nm. The 9600M GT is at the low end of the mid range but it's 65nm. These are the only concrete, heat related stats we have to compare, in which case, the 3850 does not at all look impractical.
Whether or not a card is possible in a MBP is not determined by whether or not it sucks. Just because the 3850 isn't garbage doesn't mean it won't be fine in a MBP. 17" anyway.
Maybe it'll be BTO like the 8800M GTS in the new iMacs.
I said GTX*
Also, nobody knows what the TDP of a 3850 is yet, all we know is that it's at the high end of the mid range and it's 55nm. The 9600M GT is at the low end of the mid range but it's 65nm. These are the only concrete, heat related stats we have to compare, in which case, the 3850 does not at all look impractical.
Whether or not a card is possible in a MBP is not determined by whether or not it sucks. Just because the 3850 isn't garbage doesn't mean it won't be fine in a MBP. 17" anyway.
Maybe it'll be BTO like the 8800M GTS in the new iMacs.
I didn't say anything about whether or not the 3850 sucks. It doesn't suck, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.
Then show me the evidence that suggests it's not possible to put a 3850 in a MBP, at least the 17". The only relevant stat we know is the fabrication process and that's smaller than the 9600M GT, a big indicator of heat output.
You're expecting a miracle out of the smaller manufacturing process. For comparison purposes, the Geforce 8700M GT, at 80nm, has a 29W TDP. The 9600M GT with the same specs but 65nm has a 23W TDP.
The Mobility Radeon HD 3850 isn't available yet so I can't find its TDP, but the desktop HD 3850 is 95W. The only meaningful difference between the two is clock speed. I can see AMD cutting the 95W figure in half by taking top binned parts and underclocking them, but no more than that.
The Macbook Pro is a rail-thin laptop with slow-spinning fans. It is not going to take a high-end GPU.
? How thin it is
? Enclosure design
? Enclosure material
? Processor speed
? Graphics card
? Magnetic latches
? Keyboard
? Hard disk capacity
Things I do care about:
? Matte screen option
Basically, if Apple re-released the G3 PowerBook, it would be of more use to me than an all-singing-all-dancing MacBook Pro with a glossy display.
Keep the matte screen option Apple!
Things I don't care about:
? How thin it is
Well we can agree on that one.
1"... 1"!! Wtf is wrong with Jobs?!
People like to shrug off hardcore gamers, but the video games industry generates more cash than both the music industry and the movie industry. Hardcore gamers are a large minority amongst consumers nowadays, they will pay if you provide, and they are one of the only areas of the market Apple isn't enticing right now.
? Matte screen option (keep it glossy, please)
Things I do care about:
? How thin it is
? Enclosure design
? Enclosure material
? Processor speed
? Graphics card
? Magnetic latches
? Keyboard (chiclet, please, keeps it cleaner under there)
? Hard disk capacity