1) The Intel integrated on the new Arrandale processors is about equal to the performance of the nVidia 9400m everyone was so happy with (rightfully so) except it sucks next to no power. HD video acceleration too. Pretty cool for what it is - ultra low power, and dirt cheap (comes with the CPU). Most users will be using that Intel integrated 90%+ of the time and not even realize it.
2) "Apple's switching solution". I love this one especially. No, this is not Apple's own proprietary switching solution. This is, in fact, nVidia Optimus technology. It's been available on PC's for months now. Don't believe me? See here: nVidia Optimus
Apple doesn't "think like that". They're using technology developed by other companies that's been out on other devices for months already. This is nothing new.
Having said that, I do like Macs, and I will be upgrading my MBP. I just hate bad information
I'm afraid you are the one with misinformation.
1) Benchmarks show that the Intel HD graphics are around 50% slower than the previous Nvidia.
2) Apple is not using nVidia Optimus, but rather their own software solution. Ars Technica contacted nVidia to find out and was told that it was all Apple's work and none of nVidia's software.
I'm a little underwhelmed with this update. Aside from moving to the latest chipset, what else is there? Graphics (that's it?). No form factor changes, no peripheral changes. I'm a little disappointed Apple hasn't taken a more aggressive roadmap- This is strictly an internal harware change, which is great (don't get me wrong), but most vendors have already updated to the i3, i5, i7 chipset, and have true quad-core offerings for high-end systems.
Not only is Apple late to the game, they aren't really bringing anything new to the table. I was waiting for this update to purchase, but was hoping for a little something extra.
The major updates hidden here are the battery life (which is incredible), and the substantial performance increase the new graphics cards will give to Grand Central enabled programs. The CPU is only one piece that improves these models. The former two I mentioned are the real underestimated impact makers.
Simply put..it's an appleinsider article. I've read enough of them to note that this place seriously enjoys giving Apple more credit than is due.
Identical functionality. Accomplished only on nVidia Optimus aware nVidia mobile GPU's. Perhaps nVidia didn't hold Apple's hand through the Mac OS implementation, but I can guarantee you that this wouldn't be possible without nVidia having created Optimus in the first place. Without hardware support, what do you do?
Regardless, the idea that this is "only available on Macs" is pure nonsense, as previously posted. It debuted on Windows 7.
2) "Apple's switching solution". I love this one especially. No, this is not Apple's own proprietary switching solution. This is, in fact, nVidia Optimus technology. It's been available on PC's for months now. Don't believe me? See here: nVidia Optimus
Apple doesn't "think like that". They're using technology developed by other companies that's been out on other devices for months already. This is nothing new.
Having said that, I do like Macs, and I will be upgrading my MBP. I just hate bad information
Instead of going off half-baked, research a little. It's not Optimus.
1) Benchmarks show that the Intel HD graphics are around 50% slower than the previous Nvidia.
2) Apple is not using nVidia Optimus, but rather their own software solution. Ars Technica contacted nVidia to find out and was told that it was all Apple's work and none of nVidia's software.
Check your facts before you post.
They also contacted Apple to get the goods. It's much better than Nvidia's Optimus, which is expected since Apple has incorporated it into the OS.
What I need to see is a benchmark comparo between the top i5 and i7 CPU MBPs. Based on benchmarks for PCs the i7 uses more power with only a marginal increase in performance. How it actually performs in the MBP should be very interesting. I'm ready to buy the i7 version, but if the i5 is almost as fast, why bother other than for double the graphics memory?
I'm a little underwhelmed with this update. Aside from moving to the latest chipset, what else is there? Graphics (that's it?). No form factor changes, no peripheral changes. I'm a little disappointed Apple hasn't taken a more aggressive roadmap- This is strictly an internal harware change, which is great (don't get me wrong), but most vendors have already updated to the i3, i5, i7 chipset, and have true quad-core offerings for high-end systems.
Not only is Apple late to the game, they aren't really bringing anything new to the table. I was waiting for this update to purchase, but was hoping for a little something extra.
What form factor change were you expecting? It's darn near perfect. I don't think Apple will change the form factor for a long time. They have made the investment in the unibody design; now they will harvest the returns for many years.
I am somewhat disappointed with the choice of Intel HD. I understand that Apple may have had no choice given the licensing issues between Intel and Nvidia. In practical terms, it may not matter.
The major updates hidden here are the battery life (which is incredible), and the substantial performance increase the new graphics cards will give to Grand Central enabled programs. The CPU is only one piece that improves these models. The former two I mentioned are the real underestimated impact makers.
I can't help wanting a little more. I will be fence sitting until the full reviews come out.
Simply put..it's an appleinsider article. I've read enough of them to note that this place seriously enjoys giving Apple more credit than is due.
Identical functionality. Accomplished only on nVidia Optimus aware nVidia mobile GPU's. Perhaps nVidia didn't hold Apple's hand through the Mac OS implementation, but I can guarantee you that this wouldn't be possible without nVidia having created Optimus in the first place. Without hardware support, what do you do?
Regardless, the idea that this is "only available on Macs" is pure nonsense, as previously posted. It debuted on Windows 7.
Please, read the articles that have been posted before posting. They have the same basic function, switching graphics, but that is where it stops. How it works and how efficient it works are very different.
Aside from the optional user intervention, Optimus does have some downsides. It works by keeping the integrated graphics powered up and running at all times. When Optimus activates the discrete GPU, it starts writing frames directly to the frame buffer used by the integrated graphics, which resides in RAM. This means that when high performance is called for, two GPUs are running at the same time (though only the discrete GPU is writing to the frame buffer), and it also causes a lot of extra traffic on the bus.
Apple's approach in the new 15" and 17" MacBook Pros differs from Optimus in two key ways. The first is that the switching is all handled automatically by Mac OS X without any user intervention (though there is actually a System Preference to deactivate it, if you choose). Apps that use advanced graphics frameworks such as OpenGL, Core Graphics, Quartz Composer or others will cause the OS to trigger the discrete GPU. So, when you are reading or writing Mail, or editing an Excel spreadsheet, Mac OS X will simply use the integrated Intel HD graphics. If you fire up Aperture or Photoshop, Mac OS X kicks on the NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M.
The second way that it differs from Optimus is that the integrated graphics are powered down when the discrete GPU is active. This saves even more power than Optimus does, leading to a stated battery life as long as nine hours.
What I need to see is a benchmark comparo between the top i5 and i7 CPU MBPs. Based on benchmarks for PCs the i7 uses more power with only a marginal increase in performance. How it actually performs in the MBP should be very interesting. I'm ready to buy the i7 version, but if the i5 is almost as fast, why bother other than for double the graphics memory?
Scroll down to see the benchmark ratings highlighted with each link.
2) "Apple's switching solution". I love this one especially. No, this is not Apple's own proprietary switching solution. This is, in fact, nVidia Optimus technology. It's been available on PC's for months now. Don't believe me? See here: nVidia Optimus
Apple doesn't "think like that". They're using technology developed by other companies that's been out on other devices for months already. This is nothing new.
I'd respond to this... but I feel sorry for you getting all that (justified) smacking from other folks.
1) Benchmarks show that the Intel HD graphics are around 50% slower than the previous Nvidia.
2) Apple is not using nVidia Optimus, but rather their own software solution. Ars Technica contacted nVidia to find out and was told that it was all Apple's work and none of nVidia's software.
Yeah its already been confirmed even by Nvidia that it is not optimus. ( http://gizmodo.com/5516517/the-secre...cbook-graphics ) Yeah its extremely simular it seems but apple im sure saw optimus, didnt think it fit what they wanted, so they took the idea and went in their own direction.
As for those saying its a underwhelmed refresh and there should have been more. From my watching of apple's refreshes for a long time, they have always been underwhelming. I think what it really comes down to with apple is they want to keep their battery charge at 8+ hours, and they KNOW you guys will buy refresh after refresh (i bet if you buy a apple laptop/ipod/etc, their numbers say at some point you will update and buy a new refresh) , so they impliment new technology very slowly.
Thats just what i think, theres no proof or anything to my opinion.
As a first time MBP buyer (soon to be), im ok with this refresh cause all i NEEDED to update in this refresh was to get i7 in a MBP. But i can see if you have a C2D MBP..this would (even though 50% increase in performance) not a refresh that drives you to buy.
@brianb if it really was Optimus or related to it in anyway. Nvidia would be jumping up and down and touting its technology in the new macs. I don't see any press release from nvidia do you. why are they not saying that they helped Apple build it.
you seem to think if nvidia did it first that blocks others from doing it as well. if anyone else makes it too then it has to be nvidia tech. there is no way in hell that Apple could have made the same tech.
From Gizmodo
Nvidia's Optimus, which allowed for basically what Apple is talking about here, was—and apparently, is—a Windows-only solution. And even on Windows, it has some irritating limitations, particularly a requirement that apps be registered with Nvidia in order to initiate a switch from one graphics unit to another.
this story headline should have a caveat directly below it.
**unless you were unlucky enough to purchase a 13" Macbook Pro**
The i7's are all well and good, but isnt the 13" laptop their best seller. No 50% speed increases there. Just a price increase for the British, and a small speed bump that hardly anyone will notice.
<< insert slow hand clap here >>
Steve believes that the new 13" MacBook Pros are fine the way that they are:
I'm not sure what you are complaining about here, both models got a significant CPU boost. They are very likely as fast or faster than an Intel I3 solution. Plus they are a hair away from being 2x faster with the GPU. All in all a very worthwhile update. If they went i3 everybody would be whining about the terrible Intel integrated graphics.
I really don't see any justification for complaining about the 13". Now the 17" and it's GPU, that is another matter.
I'm not sure what you are complaining about here, both models got a significant CPU boost. They are very likely as fast or faster than an Intel I3 solution. Plus they are a hair away from being 2x faster with the GPU. All in all a very worthwhile update.
Plus three hours of additional battery life for the same price.
Quote:
If they went i3 everybody would be whining about the terrible Intel integrated graphics.
The rebuttal for that is, "Well they could add a discrete GPU", but if Apple dd go with a Core-i3 and discrete GPU the price would be higher and the additional battery life not likely happening, so there would be rampant complaining about that.
I can see how people can be disappointed by the C2D at first, but you look at the specs and price for more than a minute and it should be clear that this was the right move for both Apple and consumers. Sure, there are few that want Core-i7 with 1GB GPU in a 12" MBP with 16:9 display, for example, but you can't make everyone happy, so you try to appeal to the largest markets.
Just ordered it from my local mac shop. 15" Hi-Res Glossy, 2.66GHz, 8GB, 128GB SSD. Plus CS5 upgrade preordered. Looking forward to design websites on my first mac. If I like it I'll swap my desktop PC with an iMac :]
Glossy? Good luck with that. I bought glossy iMac and now I bang my head against the wall. Even with the blinds on the windows I still can see the outdoor light on the screen. :-( Looking for some anti-glare filter now. Never glossy screen again. :-(
Comments
The misinformation here is just unreal.
1) The Intel integrated on the new Arrandale processors is about equal to the performance of the nVidia 9400m everyone was so happy with (rightfully so) except it sucks next to no power. HD video acceleration too. Pretty cool for what it is - ultra low power, and dirt cheap (comes with the CPU). Most users will be using that Intel integrated 90%+ of the time and not even realize it.
2) "Apple's switching solution". I love this one especially. No, this is not Apple's own proprietary switching solution. This is, in fact, nVidia Optimus technology. It's been available on PC's for months now. Don't believe me? See here: nVidia Optimus
Apple doesn't "think like that". They're using technology developed by other companies that's been out on other devices for months already. This is nothing new.
Having said that, I do like Macs, and I will be upgrading my MBP. I just hate bad information
I'm afraid you are the one with misinformation.
1) Benchmarks show that the Intel HD graphics are around 50% slower than the previous Nvidia.
2) Apple is not using nVidia Optimus, but rather their own software solution. Ars Technica contacted nVidia to find out and was told that it was all Apple's work and none of nVidia's software.
Check your facts before you post.
Then what about this AppleInsider article?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...t_optimus.html
Sorry about double post
I'm a little underwhelmed with this update. Aside from moving to the latest chipset, what else is there? Graphics (that's it?). No form factor changes, no peripheral changes. I'm a little disappointed Apple hasn't taken a more aggressive roadmap- This is strictly an internal harware change, which is great (don't get me wrong), but most vendors have already updated to the i3, i5, i7 chipset, and have true quad-core offerings for high-end systems.
Not only is Apple late to the game, they aren't really bringing anything new to the table. I was waiting for this update to purchase, but was hoping for a little something extra.
The major updates hidden here are the battery life (which is incredible), and the substantial performance increase the new graphics cards will give to Grand Central enabled programs. The CPU is only one piece that improves these models. The former two I mentioned are the real underestimated impact makers.
Then what about this AppleInsider article?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...t_optimus.html
Simply put..it's an appleinsider article. I've read enough of them to note that this place seriously enjoys giving Apple more credit than is due.
Identical functionality. Accomplished only on nVidia Optimus aware nVidia mobile GPU's. Perhaps nVidia didn't hold Apple's hand through the Mac OS implementation, but I can guarantee you that this wouldn't be possible without nVidia having created Optimus in the first place. Without hardware support, what do you do?
Regardless, the idea that this is "only available on Macs" is pure nonsense, as previously posted. It debuted on Windows 7.
The misinformation here is just unreal.
snip...
2) "Apple's switching solution". I love this one especially. No, this is not Apple's own proprietary switching solution. This is, in fact, nVidia Optimus technology. It's been available on PC's for months now. Don't believe me? See here: nVidia Optimus
Apple doesn't "think like that". They're using technology developed by other companies that's been out on other devices for months already. This is nothing new.
Having said that, I do like Macs, and I will be upgrading my MBP. I just hate bad information
Instead of going off half-baked, research a little. It's not Optimus.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...hreadid=108696
and
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...-switching.ars
I'm afraid you are the one with misinformation.
1) Benchmarks show that the Intel HD graphics are around 50% slower than the previous Nvidia.
2) Apple is not using nVidia Optimus, but rather their own software solution. Ars Technica contacted nVidia to find out and was told that it was all Apple's work and none of nVidia's software.
Check your facts before you post.
They also contacted Apple to get the goods. It's much better than Nvidia's Optimus, which is expected since Apple has incorporated it into the OS.
I'm a little underwhelmed with this update. Aside from moving to the latest chipset, what else is there? Graphics (that's it?). No form factor changes, no peripheral changes. I'm a little disappointed Apple hasn't taken a more aggressive roadmap- This is strictly an internal harware change, which is great (don't get me wrong), but most vendors have already updated to the i3, i5, i7 chipset, and have true quad-core offerings for high-end systems.
Not only is Apple late to the game, they aren't really bringing anything new to the table. I was waiting for this update to purchase, but was hoping for a little something extra.
What form factor change were you expecting? It's darn near perfect. I don't think Apple will change the form factor for a long time. They have made the investment in the unibody design; now they will harvest the returns for many years.
I am somewhat disappointed with the choice of Intel HD. I understand that Apple may have had no choice given the licensing issues between Intel and Nvidia. In practical terms, it may not matter.
The major updates hidden here are the battery life (which is incredible), and the substantial performance increase the new graphics cards will give to Grand Central enabled programs. The CPU is only one piece that improves these models. The former two I mentioned are the real underestimated impact makers.
I can't help wanting a little more. I will be fence sitting until the full reviews come out.
Simply put..it's an appleinsider article. I've read enough of them to note that this place seriously enjoys giving Apple more credit than is due.
Identical functionality. Accomplished only on nVidia Optimus aware nVidia mobile GPU's. Perhaps nVidia didn't hold Apple's hand through the Mac OS implementation, but I can guarantee you that this wouldn't be possible without nVidia having created Optimus in the first place. Without hardware support, what do you do?
Regardless, the idea that this is "only available on Macs" is pure nonsense, as previously posted. It debuted on Windows 7.
Please, read the articles that have been posted before posting. They have the same basic function, switching graphics, but that is where it stops. How it works and how efficient it works are very different.
What I need to see is a benchmark comparo between the top i5 and i7 CPU MBPs. Based on benchmarks for PCs the i7 uses more power with only a marginal increase in performance. How it actually performs in the MBP should be very interesting. I'm ready to buy the i7 version, but if the i5 is almost as fast, why bother other than for double the graphics memory?
Scroll down to see the benchmark ratings highlighted with each link.
Intel T9600 --
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...00+%40+2.80GHz
Intel i5-520M --
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...20+%40+2.40GHz
Intel i5-540M --
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...40+%40+2.53GHz
Intel i7-620M --
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...20+%40+2.67GHz
You also might want to look here --
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...st.2436.0.html
The misinformation here is just unreal.
2) "Apple's switching solution". I love this one especially. No, this is not Apple's own proprietary switching solution. This is, in fact, nVidia Optimus technology. It's been available on PC's for months now. Don't believe me? See here: nVidia Optimus
Apple doesn't "think like that". They're using technology developed by other companies that's been out on other devices for months already. This is nothing new.
I'd respond to this... but I feel sorry for you getting all that (justified) smacking from other folks.
Sheesh... the misinformation here is just unreal!
I'm afraid you are the one with misinformation.
1) Benchmarks show that the Intel HD graphics are around 50% slower than the previous Nvidia.
2) Apple is not using nVidia Optimus, but rather their own software solution. Ars Technica contacted nVidia to find out and was told that it was all Apple's work and none of nVidia's software.
Check your facts before you post.
Right on, thanks for slapping him!
As for those saying its a underwhelmed refresh and there should have been more. From my watching of apple's refreshes for a long time, they have always been underwhelming. I think what it really comes down to with apple is they want to keep their battery charge at 8+ hours, and they KNOW you guys will buy refresh after refresh (i bet if you buy a apple laptop/ipod/etc, their numbers say at some point you will update and buy a new refresh) , so they impliment new technology very slowly.
Thats just what i think, theres no proof or anything to my opinion.
As a first time MBP buyer (soon to be), im ok with this refresh cause all i NEEDED to update in this refresh was to get i7 in a MBP. But i can see if you have a C2D MBP..this would (even though 50% increase in performance) not a refresh that drives you to buy.
you seem to think if nvidia did it first that blocks others from doing it as well. if anyone else makes it too then it has to be nvidia tech. there is no way in hell that Apple could have made the same tech.
From Gizmodo
Nvidia's Optimus, which allowed for basically what Apple is talking about here, was—and apparently, is—a Windows-only solution. And even on Windows, it has some irritating limitations, particularly a requirement that apps be registered with Nvidia in order to initiate a switch from one graphics unit to another.
not worth the comment
(how the hell do you delete a post?)
this story headline should have a caveat directly below it.
**unless you were unlucky enough to purchase a 13" Macbook Pro**
The i7's are all well and good, but isnt the 13" laptop their best seller. No 50% speed increases there. Just a price increase for the British, and a small speed bump that hardly anyone will notice.
<< insert slow hand clap here >>
Steve believes that the new 13" MacBook Pros are fine the way that they are:
What about the 13". Seems that one got screwed...
I'm not sure what you are complaining about here, both models got a significant CPU boost. They are very likely as fast or faster than an Intel I3 solution. Plus they are a hair away from being 2x faster with the GPU. All in all a very worthwhile update. If they went i3 everybody would be whining about the terrible Intel integrated graphics.
I really don't see any justification for complaining about the 13". Now the 17" and it's GPU, that is another matter.
I'm not sure what you are complaining about here, both models got a significant CPU boost. They are very likely as fast or faster than an Intel I3 solution. Plus they are a hair away from being 2x faster with the GPU. All in all a very worthwhile update.
Plus three hours of additional battery life for the same price.
If they went i3 everybody would be whining about the terrible Intel integrated graphics.
The rebuttal for that is, "Well they could add a discrete GPU", but if Apple dd go with a Core-i3 and discrete GPU the price would be higher and the additional battery life not likely happening, so there would be rampant complaining about that.
I can see how people can be disappointed by the C2D at first, but you look at the specs and price for more than a minute and it should be clear that this was the right move for both Apple and consumers. Sure, there are few that want Core-i7 with 1GB GPU in a 12" MBP with 16:9 display, for example, but you can't make everyone happy, so you try to appeal to the largest markets.
Just ordered it from my local mac shop. 15" Hi-Res Glossy, 2.66GHz, 8GB, 128GB SSD. Plus CS5 upgrade preordered. Looking forward to design websites on my first mac. If I like it I'll swap my desktop PC with an iMac :]
Glossy? Good luck with that. I bought glossy iMac and now I bang my head against the wall. Even with the blinds on the windows I still can see the outdoor light on the screen. :-( Looking for some anti-glare filter now. Never glossy screen again. :-(