Please, no! Going to 16:10 already reduced the height of my 13? display despite having a 12? PB before it. I know we can?t go back to 4:3, but these wider screens are simply horrible for reading text on a small display.
Yes!
My dock is on the side of the screen, and I even hide the bookmark toolbar in Safari so I can get a few more lines of text. (needless to say i was a fan of tabs on top for the same reason).
My dock is on the side of the screen, and I even hide the bookmark toolbar in Safari so I can get a few more lines of text. (needless to say i was a fan of tabs on top for the same reason).
Me too. I used that Safari 4.0 Beta for as long as I could. I don?t want it to be the default, but an option would be nice.
Why would Apple have to move to 14" for 16:9 WXGA? There are plenty of 13" 16:9 WXGA displays out there. For Apple to replace the 13" MBP so quickly is nonsensical.
If we see any quad-core chips in the 15" MBP this year, I'd be shocked, unless the case is redesigned, allowing more airflow and cooling. A major redesign of a one-year-old enclosure doesn't seem cost effective.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple added a special new MBP that is slightly thicker and has a quad-core in it.
If we see any quad-core chips in the 15" MBP this year, I'd be shocked, unless the case is redesigned, allowing more airflow and cooling. A major redesign of a one-year-old enclosure doesn't seem cost effective.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple added a special new MBP that is slightly thicker and has a quad-core in it.
Dell has there Studio 15 and 17 notebooks with a Core i7 option. They go from 1? at the front to 1.5? at the back. You can get the i7-720QM or i7-820QM CPU for $999 or $1,349, respectively. That CPU bump from 1.6GHz to 1.73GHz will cost you $350. Crazy!
I have more faith in Apple?s engineering than Dell?s, but that does seem like a lot of crunching to maintain the same 1? height.
Dell has there Studio 15 and 17 notebooks with a Core i7 option. They go from 1? at the front to 1.5? at the back. You can get the i7-720QM or i7-820QM CPU for $999 or $1,349, respectively. That CPU bump from 1.6GHz to 1.73GHz will cost you $350. Crazy!
I have more faith in Apple?s engineering than Dell?s, but that does seem like a lot of crunching to maintain the same 1? height.
The difference between .98" and 1.5" is MASSIVE! We're talking more than 50%. I don't see how Apple can cram even the lowest clocking i5 in there. It could happen, but I'd be more willing to bet that it doesn't for the 15."
+1 to this... MacBooks are updated 2 or 3 times every year so this is no news...
Yeah but putting the reference to a new model in this OS update suggests the update is between this OS update and the next i.e soon as new models don't usually come in December.
This has implications for what the update will be as there's no Arrandale yet so it seems they might try using the quads.
Given the power consumption of the 2GHz chip at full load, I don't think they'd go for that one. But they should do something to rival the 1.6GHz quad 15" HP Envy at $1799 with 6GB Ram and 1GB Radeon 4830. They list this model at having 7.25 hours of battery life without wifi. The CPU is only 10W higher than the 3GHz chip Apple offer in the MBP.
I don't think 6GB needs to be standard but it would be nice to see the chip on the $1999 model and above. Maybe put the 1.73GHz quad model on the 17".
The desktop line is interesting because they switched entirely to dedicated ATI chips, which adds weight to Apple's disagreements with NVidia. The GT240M would be a good GPU but the Radeon 4830 is fine. Apple never used the 9400M with the 9600M GT anyway, it was always one or the other.
It would be nice to see the lower models move up in spec - start the 13" at 2.53GHz for example to give it an edge over the plastic one - but it's not absolutely necessary.
I'm talking about chipsets. You are mixing up graphics & chipsets.
It affects every portable mac. Currently they all use an nvidia chipset. No current portable macs use intel chipsets. Currently there are only Intel chipsets for Core i5 & i7 processors.
For a computer to use a Core i5 or i7 it will need to run on either:
A 2 chip system with an intel CPU & intel chipset/GPU or
A 3 chip system with an intel CPU, intel chipset & AMD or Nvidia GPU.
All the current portables use a 2 chip system with an intel CPU & an Nvidia chipset/GPU, with the higher end models adding a 2nd GPU that can be turned off to save power.
So, I'm willing to bet that no low end portables (or the Air) will get a Core i5 or i7 chip anytime soon because they will use more power if they go the 3 chip route or have worse graphics performance if they go the 2 chip route.
With the Arrandale, you'll end up with Intel integrated graphics no matter what since it's integrated in the CPU, possibly with a discrete GPU tacked on. For the Clarksfield, there are no Intel GPU solutions at all so you need a discrete GPU.
What actual evidence are there for quad core CPUs in these new machines? Is there info in these plists that actually say what CPU and GPU they are using or is the "evidence" we are talking about just really speculations taken from Intel's current roadmap?
I'm talking about chipsets. You are mixing up graphics & chipsets.
It affects every portable mac. Currently they all use an nvidia chipset. No current portable macs use intel chipsets. Currently there are only Intel chipsets for Core i5 & i7 processors.
For a computer to use a Core i5 or i7 it will need to run on either:
A 2 chip system with an intel CPU & intel chipset/GPU or
A 3 chip system with an intel CPU, intel chipset & AMD or Nvidia GPU.
All the current portables use a 2 chip system with an intel CPU & an Nvidia chipset/GPU, with the higher end models adding a 2nd GPU that can be turned off to save power.
So, I'm willing to bet that no low end portables (or the Air) will get a Core i5 or i7 chip anytime soon because they will use more power if they go the 3 chip route or have worse graphics performance if they go the 2 chip route.
I'm not confused. You're worried that the hybrid set up for Apple will be lost and you're going to be stuck with Intel.
The Arrandale architecture out this January for a core i5 32nm fab has integrated graphics for the laptop market, but the graphics performance won't match the Nvidia 9400M.
I don't see Apple jumping onboard the Core i5/i7 bandwagon until Larabie has made it into the market.
Apple will not cripple their Macbook Pro after moving the latest Macbook to the 9400M baseline.
Intel's Larabie won't be ready by January.
Either they hedge and just do an incremental update in CPU and use the 9400M and bump the dedicated GPU for the Macbook Pro that are OpenCL ready:
I just don't see Apple jumping into the Core iSeries until they can keep their margins and Intel has part of the OpenCL/OpenGL equation capacity to justify using them.
Hell, I'd just keep the current CPUs or bump up a bit, where possible, use the 9400M Chipset and drop in the GT 230M or GT240M and make Hybrid access without any need to logout/login work out of the box and be leveraged system-wide all those OpenCL cores on the 230M and 240M OpenCL ready GPGPUs.
If they remove the optical drive they can position the GPU and CPU farther away and with larger heat sinks, like they did in the new wider iMacs. I can dream, can?t I?
That'll be great:
1. It will give us the option to attach a seperate BluRay drive afterwards whenever we like!
2. It will bring the cost down as the seperate drive will be an option.
3. It might extend the battery life.
4. And as Solipsism mentions, it will give us a cooler Macbook Pro
They do, but the last MBP update wasn?t that long ago. 140 days when the average is 200, according to MacRumors? Buyer?s Guide. That puts the mean average in December, a horrible time to release anything. I?d say it could both ways, but this revelation in the 10.6.2 Beta tips the scales to the Autumn release, or Spring for the australs.
Yes, it seems to be too early for a refresh.
However, a release right before the shopping season will give the MBpros enough time to shine before the much anticipated Tablets will be announced in January 2010?!
There are only 2 models that have the lower 45W TDP (reasonable given the previous 35W CPU + ~10W northbridge)
No, 45 W is not reasonable. The current MBP uses "P" Core 2 Duos, which are 25 W parts (apart from the top-end 17" which uses the standard 35 W "T" type).
Where did you get your 10 W for the northbridge? I've tried looking a few times but have been unable to find power consumption details.
We're looking at the MBP moving from
CPU+9400M (replaces north and south bridge) + Dedicated GPU
to
CPU+Southbridge+Dedicated GPU.
In the current line-up, you can disable the dedicated GPU to give longer run time on battery and lower heat. If we then go to a 45 W CPU and have to have the dedicated GPU running all the time, it's going to result in shorter battery life and hotter laps. In terms of power consumption, this is like going back to the original Core Duo-based MBP, anyone remember that? Very poor battery life and they got seriously hot. I'm not pleased .
My dock is on the side of the screen, and I even hide the bookmark toolbar in Safari so I can get a few more lines of text. (needless to say i was a fan of tabs on top for the same reason).
i miss the split title / tab bar of safari 4 beta, i'm sad they canned that idea...
I'll buy one in an instant if they include Blu-Ray and perhaps some next-gen connectivity (Light Peak would be awesome). Otherwise, I'll stay with my trusty Santa Rosa MBP.
However, a release right before the shopping season will give the MBpros enough time to shine before the much anticipated Tablets will be announced in January 2010?!
No, 45 W is not reasonable. The current MBP uses "P" Core 2 Duos, which are 25 W parts (apart from the top-end 17" which uses the standard 35 W "T" type).
Where did you get your 10 W for the northbridge? I've tried looking a few times but have been unable to find power consumption details.
We're looking at the MBP moving from
CPU+9400M (replaces north and south bridge) + Dedicated GPU
to
CPU+Southbridge+Dedicated GPU.
In the current line-up, you can disable the dedicated GPU to give longer run time on battery and lower heat. If we then go to a 45 W CPU and have to have the dedicated GPU running all the time, it's going to result in shorter battery life and hotter laps. In terms of power consumption, this is like going back to the original Core Duo-based MBP, anyone remember that? Very poor battery life and they got seriously hot. I'm not pleased .
Well, if we agree that the 55W TDP of the 2GHz Core i7-920XM is too hot for the MacBook Pro, then that only leaves Apple with 2 45W Core i7 options. Apple generally allows for a BTO, which would most likely be the 1.73GHz Core i7-820QM. That leaves the 1.6GHz Core i7-720QM as the only CPU available to be integrated as a standard CPU in the MacBook Pro. It's unlikely that Apple would use the same 1.6GHz Core i7-720QM across all 4 15"/17" MacBook Pro models, so the it'll probably replace the top-end current CPU in the high-end 15" and the 17" MacBook Pro which is a 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo. I believe this one has a 35W TDP. So in the models where Apple would offer the Core i7 Clarksfield either as a standard option or as a BTO, Apple already uses 35W TDP CPUs rather than 25W TDP so the power difference should be negligible. I believe Core i7's new power controller is also smarter so that idle power consumption and temperatures are generally lower than Core 2 Duo, which is probably more important for a notebook, even if peak power consumption when fully loaded is the same or a little higher.
Intel rates the PM55 with a 7W TDP in Table 23 while nVidia claims the 9400M in their ION platform has a 12W TDP including IGP. Estimating around 10W TDP for the northbridge doesn't seem unreasonable. Even if the 9400M shuts off it's IGP, it's doubtful that it'd be able to reach the TDP of the PM55 given that TSMC's 65nm process is less efficient than Intel's 65nm process.
A much needed update - though I'd be surprised if the i5 or i7's get in the MBP's, I'm thinking it'll be the Xeon's.
There are no notebook xeon and I don't think Apple is going to pack on an extra half to three quarters of an inch and cut battery time to nothing to use them.
Comments
Please, no! Going to 16:10 already reduced the height of my 13? display despite having a 12? PB before it. I know we can?t go back to 4:3, but these wider screens are simply horrible for reading text on a small display.
Yes!
My dock is on the side of the screen, and I even hide the bookmark toolbar in Safari so I can get a few more lines of text. (needless to say i was a fan of tabs on top for the same reason).
Yes!
My dock is on the side of the screen, and I even hide the bookmark toolbar in Safari so I can get a few more lines of text. (needless to say i was a fan of tabs on top for the same reason).
Me too. I used that Safari 4.0 Beta for as long as I could. I don?t want it to be the default, but an option would be nice.
If we see any quad-core chips in the 15" MBP this year, I'd be shocked, unless the case is redesigned, allowing more airflow and cooling. A major redesign of a one-year-old enclosure doesn't seem cost effective.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple added a special new MBP that is slightly thicker and has a quad-core in it.
If we see any quad-core chips in the 15" MBP this year, I'd be shocked, unless the case is redesigned, allowing more airflow and cooling. A major redesign of a one-year-old enclosure doesn't seem cost effective.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple added a special new MBP that is slightly thicker and has a quad-core in it.
Dell has there Studio 15 and 17 notebooks with a Core i7 option. They go from 1? at the front to 1.5? at the back. You can get the i7-720QM or i7-820QM CPU for $999 or $1,349, respectively. That CPU bump from 1.6GHz to 1.73GHz will cost you $350. Crazy!
I have more faith in Apple?s engineering than Dell?s, but that does seem like a lot of crunching to maintain the same 1? height.
Dell has there Studio 15 and 17 notebooks with a Core i7 option. They go from 1? at the front to 1.5? at the back. You can get the i7-720QM or i7-820QM CPU for $999 or $1,349, respectively. That CPU bump from 1.6GHz to 1.73GHz will cost you $350. Crazy!
I have more faith in Apple?s engineering than Dell?s, but that does seem like a lot of crunching to maintain the same 1? height.
The difference between .98" and 1.5" is MASSIVE! We're talking more than 50%. I don't see how Apple can cram even the lowest clocking i5 in there. It could happen, but I'd be more willing to bet that it doesn't for the 15."
+1 to this... MacBooks are updated 2 or 3 times every year so this is no news...
Yeah but putting the reference to a new model in this OS update suggests the update is between this OS update and the next i.e soon as new models don't usually come in December.
This has implications for what the update will be as there's no Arrandale yet so it seems they might try using the quads.
Given the power consumption of the 2GHz chip at full load, I don't think they'd go for that one. But they should do something to rival the 1.6GHz quad 15" HP Envy at $1799 with 6GB Ram and 1GB Radeon 4830. They list this model at having 7.25 hours of battery life without wifi. The CPU is only 10W higher than the 3GHz chip Apple offer in the MBP.
I don't think 6GB needs to be standard but it would be nice to see the chip on the $1999 model and above. Maybe put the 1.73GHz quad model on the 17".
The desktop line is interesting because they switched entirely to dedicated ATI chips, which adds weight to Apple's disagreements with NVidia. The GT240M would be a good GPU but the Radeon 4830 is fine. Apple never used the 9400M with the 9600M GT anyway, it was always one or the other.
It would be nice to see the lower models move up in spec - start the 13" at 2.53GHz for example to give it an edge over the plastic one - but it's not absolutely necessary.
I'm talking about chipsets. You are mixing up graphics & chipsets.
It affects every portable mac. Currently they all use an nvidia chipset. No current portable macs use intel chipsets. Currently there are only Intel chipsets for Core i5 & i7 processors.
For a computer to use a Core i5 or i7 it will need to run on either:
A 2 chip system with an intel CPU & intel chipset/GPU or
A 3 chip system with an intel CPU, intel chipset & AMD or Nvidia GPU.
All the current portables use a 2 chip system with an intel CPU & an Nvidia chipset/GPU, with the higher end models adding a 2nd GPU that can be turned off to save power.
So, I'm willing to bet that no low end portables (or the Air) will get a Core i5 or i7 chip anytime soon because they will use more power if they go the 3 chip route or have worse graphics performance if they go the 2 chip route.
With the Arrandale, you'll end up with Intel integrated graphics no matter what since it's integrated in the CPU, possibly with a discrete GPU tacked on. For the Clarksfield, there are no Intel GPU solutions at all so you need a discrete GPU.
I'm talking about chipsets. You are mixing up graphics & chipsets.
It affects every portable mac. Currently they all use an nvidia chipset. No current portable macs use intel chipsets. Currently there are only Intel chipsets for Core i5 & i7 processors.
For a computer to use a Core i5 or i7 it will need to run on either:
A 2 chip system with an intel CPU & intel chipset/GPU or
A 3 chip system with an intel CPU, intel chipset & AMD or Nvidia GPU.
All the current portables use a 2 chip system with an intel CPU & an Nvidia chipset/GPU, with the higher end models adding a 2nd GPU that can be turned off to save power.
So, I'm willing to bet that no low end portables (or the Air) will get a Core i5 or i7 chip anytime soon because they will use more power if they go the 3 chip route or have worse graphics performance if they go the 2 chip route.
I'm not confused. You're worried that the hybrid set up for Apple will be lost and you're going to be stuck with Intel.
The Arrandale architecture out this January for a core i5 32nm fab has integrated graphics for the laptop market, but the graphics performance won't match the Nvidia 9400M.
I don't see Apple jumping onboard the Core i5/i7 bandwagon until Larabie has made it into the market.
Apple will not cripple their Macbook Pro after moving the latest Macbook to the 9400M baseline.
Intel's Larabie won't be ready by January.
Either they hedge and just do an incremental update in CPU and use the 9400M and bump the dedicated GPU for the Macbook Pro that are OpenCL ready:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product...t_230m_us.html
or they wait.
I just don't see Apple jumping into the Core iSeries until they can keep their margins and Intel has part of the OpenCL/OpenGL equation capacity to justify using them.
Hell, I'd just keep the current CPUs or bump up a bit, where possible, use the 9400M Chipset and drop in the GT 230M or GT240M and make Hybrid access without any need to logout/login work out of the box and be leveraged system-wide all those OpenCL cores on the 230M and 240M OpenCL ready GPGPUs.
If they remove the optical drive they can position the GPU and CPU farther away and with larger heat sinks, like they did in the new wider iMacs. I can dream, can?t I?
That'll be great:
They do, but the last MBP update wasn?t that long ago. 140 days when the average is 200, according to MacRumors? Buyer?s Guide. That puts the mean average in December, a horrible time to release anything. I?d say it could both ways, but this revelation in the 10.6.2 Beta tips the scales to the Autumn release, or Spring for the australs.
Yes, it seems to be too early for a refresh.
However, a release right before the shopping season will give the MBpros enough time to shine before the much anticipated Tablets will be announced in January 2010?!
The current C2Ds are 35W.
Not correct.
There are only 2 models that have the lower 45W TDP (reasonable given the previous 35W CPU + ~10W northbridge)
No, 45 W is not reasonable. The current MBP uses "P" Core 2 Duos, which are 25 W parts (apart from the top-end 17" which uses the standard 35 W "T" type).
Where did you get your 10 W for the northbridge? I've tried looking a few times but have been unable to find power consumption details.
We're looking at the MBP moving from
CPU+9400M (replaces north and south bridge) + Dedicated GPU
to
CPU+Southbridge+Dedicated GPU.
In the current line-up, you can disable the dedicated GPU to give longer run time on battery and lower heat. If we then go to a 45 W CPU and have to have the dedicated GPU running all the time, it's going to result in shorter battery life and hotter laps. In terms of power consumption, this is like going back to the original Core Duo-based MBP, anyone remember that? Very poor battery life and they got seriously hot. I'm not pleased
Yes!
My dock is on the side of the screen, and I even hide the bookmark toolbar in Safari so I can get a few more lines of text. (needless to say i was a fan of tabs on top for the same reason).
i miss the split title / tab bar of safari 4 beta, i'm sad they canned that idea...
Quad-core MBP !
However, I hope you will not drop the NVIDIA,
it's much more powerful than ATI's GPUs.
Yes, it seems to be too early for a refresh.
However, a release right before the shopping season will give the MBpros enough time to shine before the much anticipated Tablets will be announced in January 2010?!
Could these be 2 new tablet models, in disguise?
No, 45 W is not reasonable. The current MBP uses "P" Core 2 Duos, which are 25 W parts (apart from the top-end 17" which uses the standard 35 W "T" type).
Where did you get your 10 W for the northbridge? I've tried looking a few times but have been unable to find power consumption details.
We're looking at the MBP moving from
CPU+9400M (replaces north and south bridge) + Dedicated GPU
to
CPU+Southbridge+Dedicated GPU.
In the current line-up, you can disable the dedicated GPU to give longer run time on battery and lower heat. If we then go to a 45 W CPU and have to have the dedicated GPU running all the time, it's going to result in shorter battery life and hotter laps. In terms of power consumption, this is like going back to the original Core Duo-based MBP, anyone remember that? Very poor battery life and they got seriously hot. I'm not pleased
Well, if we agree that the 55W TDP of the 2GHz Core i7-920XM is too hot for the MacBook Pro, then that only leaves Apple with 2 45W Core i7 options. Apple generally allows for a BTO, which would most likely be the 1.73GHz Core i7-820QM. That leaves the 1.6GHz Core i7-720QM as the only CPU available to be integrated as a standard CPU in the MacBook Pro. It's unlikely that Apple would use the same 1.6GHz Core i7-720QM across all 4 15"/17" MacBook Pro models, so the it'll probably replace the top-end current CPU in the high-end 15" and the 17" MacBook Pro which is a 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo. I believe this one has a 35W TDP. So in the models where Apple would offer the Core i7 Clarksfield either as a standard option or as a BTO, Apple already uses 35W TDP CPUs rather than 25W TDP so the power difference should be negligible. I believe Core i7's new power controller is also smarter so that idle power consumption and temperatures are generally lower than Core 2 Duo, which is probably more important for a notebook, even if peak power consumption when fully loaded is the same or a little higher.
http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/320122.pdf
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...om,2153-4.html
Intel rates the PM55 with a 7W TDP in Table 23 while nVidia claims the 9400M in their ION platform has a 12W TDP including IGP. Estimating around 10W TDP for the northbridge doesn't seem unreasonable. Even if the 9400M shuts off it's IGP, it's doubtful that it'd be able to reach the TDP of the PM55 given that TSMC's 65nm process is less efficient than Intel's 65nm process.
A much needed update - though I'd be surprised if the i5 or i7's get in the MBP's, I'm thinking it'll be the Xeon's.
There are no notebook xeon and I don't think Apple is going to pack on an extra half to three quarters of an inch and cut battery time to nothing to use them.