Compared to the 2.6GHz model, yes it would save you 9 watts, I got it straight off wikipedia. But like you pointed out, which I forgot about and is a very good point, most operating systems, Linux, Windows and OS X, utilize Intel SpeedStepping. That is, they vary the CPU core speed depending directly on the workload. So if you're just browsing the web till your battery runs out, I would doubt the processor ever really gets above 1GHz. Therefore making your choice of 2.5 or 2.6 largely irrelevant. But if you're pushing the processor to the max till the battery dies then yes, you would see slight increase in battery life. Honestly how much I can't say, maybe 10-15 minutes? But, you'd also possibly be getting a little less work done than if you had the 2.6GHz. I believe rendering is CPU bound, therefore yes you probably would see a slight increase in performance if you had a 2.6GHz model, I don't know if it would be 10 seconds, or more, or even less.
I think the deciding factor for me would be, am I usually using my laptop plugged in? (Which in my case is not) If so, and money was no object (again not my case), then get the 2.6GHz if you really need that extra speed.
Another good point to make, and I'm not trying to insult anyone here so please don't take it that way, is that the average consumer sees a higher core speed and immediately assumes that it is a better performing machine but this is not really true. Ever since the introduction of Hyper Treading and multi-cored chips the speed wars have been largely irrelevant. There are many other factors that affect performance including FSB speed, hard drive RPMs, cache size... the list goes on. In the end only if your application is truly bottlenecked by the CPU, will an increase in core speed make a real tangible difference.
but also getting the 2.6GHz will allow some gaming headroom. but then again it will come down to price. depending on how much this 0.1GHz will cost. if it is only $200.. i personally dont think it would be worth the money.. but then agaim i do not know.. will apple even have a 2.5GHz as an option or a 2.6GHz as std?
I gave up PC gaming long time ago. I decided that when my son is old enough I will buy us a PS3, Wii, or Xbox depending on which will survive in the next few years
I'm thinking the next laptops will support add-in or built-in cellular modem cards similar to Apple's early Airport cards, either in AT&T and Verizon flavors, or unlocked. I guess Apple could even support both GSM and CDMA in the same card, like the Blackberry 8330 does.
The thought came to me when I read that, as soon as Tuesday, Verizon might announce relaxed broadband access rules, this on the heels of similar adjustments by AT&T. Coincidence...?
I'm thinking the next laptops will support add-in or built-in cellular modem cards similar to Apple's early Airport cards, either in AT&T and Verizon flavors, or unlocked. I guess Apple could even support both GSM and CDMA in the same card, like the Blackberry 8330 does.
I say it won't be happening because the most useful application for a notebook is the MBA and it has diddly-squat for internal cellular cards.
If the US, Apple's main focus, was all GSM or CDMA I think they would have been one of the forerunners of cellular integration.
I'm thinking the next laptops will support add-in or built-in cellular modem cards similar to Apple's early Airport cards, either in AT&T and Verizon flavors, or unlocked. I guess Apple could even support both GSM and CDMA in the same card, like the Blackberry 8330 does.
The thought came to me when I read that, as soon as Tuesday, Verizon might announce relaxed broadband access rules, this on the heels of similar adjustments by AT&T. Coincidence...?
I'm with solipsism on this one. The MBPs do not need a refresh to support cellular modems ... you can stick one in the PCMCIA slot today. Apple evidently doesn't see enough demand there to offer their own, so why would they build it in?
As for the MBA, you can bet that there's not a cubic mm of space un-spoken-for in that. Maybe the second or third generation will manage to shrink things some more so that there's room for more wireless capability than it has now; but that's going to be a ways off.
At this point you could tell me that Apple became the first technology company to independently launch a successful mission to the moon and that the vessel was maned by apes and my response would be, "Uh huh, okay, great. I DON"T GIVE A DAMN BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVEN'T UPDATED THE MACBOOK PRO!"
2-4 WEEKS AFTER THE SDK EVENT? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THAT IS WAYY TOO LONG DUDE.
Well I thought I had a decent train of thought going there. If it was lacking in rational, then I apologize and will do better in the future to elaborate my thoughts.
(snip)
Also to address the heat issue, I would have to agree with you 2.8GHz would put out quite a bit of heat, which could make the laptop uncomfortable. Though if I had to guess the processors themselves are not any hotter than those that are used in any other notebooks, Dell, HP what have you. The aluminum of case instead conducts the heat much more effectively than a plastic one, making the laptop feel hotter than it actually is, and furthermore Apple engineering might have even counted on that fact to better cool the CPU. Actually, I would be willing to money on that. Peace.
I agree the 2.5GHz model will be the best compromise in terms of power and battery performance, in addition to value-for-money.
While caching may make things more efficient, I believe the new SSE4 extensions will be of most benefit for graphics and video producers. Indeed, I read in an article that SSE4 enabled applications can boost performance into the double-digit territory.
I'm with solipsism on this one. The MBPs do not need a refresh to support cellular modems ... you can stick one in the PCMCIA slot today. Apple evidently doesn't see enough demand there to offer their own, so why would they build it in?
You meant to say, "You can stick one in the ExpressCard/34 slot today."
Comments
Compared to the 2.6GHz model, yes it would save you 9 watts, I got it straight off wikipedia. But like you pointed out, which I forgot about and is a very good point, most operating systems, Linux, Windows and OS X, utilize Intel SpeedStepping. That is, they vary the CPU core speed depending directly on the workload. So if you're just browsing the web till your battery runs out, I would doubt the processor ever really gets above 1GHz. Therefore making your choice of 2.5 or 2.6 largely irrelevant. But if you're pushing the processor to the max till the battery dies then yes, you would see slight increase in battery life. Honestly how much I can't say, maybe 10-15 minutes? But, you'd also possibly be getting a little less work done than if you had the 2.6GHz. I believe rendering is CPU bound, therefore yes you probably would see a slight increase in performance if you had a 2.6GHz model, I don't know if it would be 10 seconds, or more, or even less.
I think the deciding factor for me would be, am I usually using my laptop plugged in? (Which in my case is not) If so, and money was no object (again not my case), then get the 2.6GHz if you really need that extra speed.
Another good point to make, and I'm not trying to insult anyone here so please don't take it that way, is that the average consumer sees a higher core speed and immediately assumes that it is a better performing machine but this is not really true. Ever since the introduction of Hyper Treading and multi-cored chips the speed wars have been largely irrelevant. There are many other factors that affect performance including FSB speed, hard drive RPMs, cache size... the list goes on. In the end only if your application is truly bottlenecked by the CPU, will an increase in core speed make a real tangible difference.
The thought came to me when I read that, as soon as Tuesday, Verizon might announce relaxed broadband access rules, this on the heels of similar adjustments by AT&T. Coincidence...?
I'm thinking the next laptops will support add-in or built-in cellular modem cards similar to Apple's early Airport cards, either in AT&T and Verizon flavors, or unlocked. I guess Apple could even support both GSM and CDMA in the same card, like the Blackberry 8330 does.
I say it won't be happening because the most useful application for a notebook is the MBA and it has diddly-squat for internal cellular cards.
If the US, Apple's main focus, was all GSM or CDMA I think they would have been one of the forerunners of cellular integration.
I'm thinking the next laptops will support add-in or built-in cellular modem cards similar to Apple's early Airport cards, either in AT&T and Verizon flavors, or unlocked. I guess Apple could even support both GSM and CDMA in the same card, like the Blackberry 8330 does.
The thought came to me when I read that, as soon as Tuesday, Verizon might announce relaxed broadband access rules, this on the heels of similar adjustments by AT&T. Coincidence...?
I'm with solipsism on this one. The MBPs do not need a refresh to support cellular modems ... you can stick one in the PCMCIA slot today. Apple evidently doesn't see enough demand there to offer their own, so why would they build it in?
As for the MBA, you can bet that there's not a cubic mm of space un-spoken-for in that. Maybe the second or third generation will manage to shrink things some more so that there's room for more wireless capability than it has now; but that's going to be a ways off.
When, then? When will they come?
At this point you could tell me that Apple became the first technology company to independently launch a successful mission to the moon and that the vessel was maned by apes and my response would be, "Uh huh, okay, great. I DON"T GIVE A DAMN BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVEN'T UPDATED THE MACBOOK PRO!"
2-4 WEEKS AFTER THE SDK EVENT? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THAT IS WAYY TOO LONG DUDE.
Solipsism,
Well I thought I had a decent train of thought going there. If it was lacking in rational, then I apologize and will do better in the future to elaborate my thoughts.
(snip)
Also to address the heat issue, I would have to agree with you 2.8GHz would put out quite a bit of heat, which could make the laptop uncomfortable. Though if I had to guess the processors themselves are not any hotter than those that are used in any other notebooks, Dell, HP what have you. The aluminum of case instead conducts the heat much more effectively than a plastic one, making the laptop feel hotter than it actually is, and furthermore Apple engineering might have even counted on that fact to better cool the CPU. Actually, I would be willing to money on that. Peace.
I agree the 2.5GHz model will be the best compromise in terms of power and battery performance, in addition to value-for-money.
While caching may make things more efficient, I believe the new SSE4 extensions will be of most benefit for graphics and video producers. Indeed, I read in an article that SSE4 enabled applications can boost performance into the double-digit territory.
YipYipYipee
I'm with solipsism on this one. The MBPs do not need a refresh to support cellular modems ... you can stick one in the PCMCIA slot today. Apple evidently doesn't see enough demand there to offer their own, so why would they build it in?
You meant to say, "You can stick one in the ExpressCard/34 slot today."
MacBook Air should be renamed MacBook Dongle since everything that could be utilized through an Express34 cardslot, can't.
So don't buy an Air.
WTF does that have to do with the (hopefully) impending MBP refresh/speedbump?
AppleStore is DOWN... Here comes the refresh...
Nope. MBP is unchanged.
So sad.
The special event is next week, not today.
7 days to go.
Sorry, guys, but you're not listening.
The special event is next week, not today.
7 days to go.
That event, if it is real, will be for the iPhone and iPod Touch SDK. Not the MB or MBP.