Benchmarks show Core i7 MacBook Pros offer 50% speed boost

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 72
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brianb View Post


    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.







    HAHAHAHAHA! yes, identical functionality - well, identical *except for the fact that Apple's implementation actually shuts down the integrated graphics when it switches to discreet, and also identical except for the fact Apple's solution is completely automatic behind the scenes as opposed to the user managing applications in the preference panel.



    Just like everything else in technology, Apple just does it better.
  • Reply 42 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gabberattack View Post


    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. :-(



    So this is why they added the anti-glare? Glossy is REALLY bad even with a little light? I plan on getting a MBP and one of the things im hung up on is glossy vs anti glare. I just LOVE how glossy looks. But idk, its really that bad for everyone?
  • Reply 43 of 72
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by M3rc Nate View Post


    So this is why they added the anti-glare? Glossy is REALLY bad even with a little light? I plan on getting a MBP and one of the things im hung up on is glossy vs anti glare. I just LOVE how glossy looks. But idk, its really that bad for everyone?



    Do you really want to have to worry which direction you are situated when using your laptop? I honestly don't know how people get by with it, it would drive me nuts.
  • Reply 44 of 72
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    Hm... article from Ars Tehnica is a bit misleading.



    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.



    But maximum battery life can be achieved only with integrated graphics usage... which should not differ much from Optimus, as Optimus is also turning discrete graphics off when integrated is running - only the other way around do both graphics run, right?



    So the story here should be that Apple's solution would give lower power consumption with discrete graphics enabled, but that for sure will not be 9 hours anyway. Is it any significant difference at all - what percentage of power consumption is powered integrated graphics pulling compared to discrete graphics, CPU, RAM, HDD, screen..?



    Additional question - how does Apple solution work under Windows XP/Vista/7 in Bootcamp? Because I think for number of users major application for stronger graphics will be playing games. If Apple's solution is not supported under Windows, then I'm not sure saving a bit of a power (under discrete graphics) is better benefit than multiplatform compatibility which Optimus should provide..?
  • Reply 45 of 72
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


    Hm... article from Ars Tehnica is a bit misleading.



    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.



    But maximum battery life can be achieved only with integrated graphics usage... which should not differ much from Optimus, as Optimus is also turning discrete graphics off when integrated is running - only the other way around do both graphics run, right?



    So the story here should be that Apple's solution would give lower power consumption with discrete graphics enabled, but that for sure will not be 9 hours anyway. Is it any significant difference at all - what percentage of power consumption is powered integrated graphics pulling compared to discrete graphics, CPU, RAM, HDD, screen..?



    Additional question - how does Apple solution work under Windows XP/Vista/7 in Bootcamp? Because I think for number of users major application for stronger graphics will be playing games. If Apple's solution is not supported under Windows, then I'm not sure saving a bit of a power (under discrete graphics) is better benefit than multiplatform compatibility which Optimus should provide..?



    Yeah, that came across as odd to me, as well.
    Quote:

    This saves even more power than Optimus does, leading to greater battery conservation when using the discrete graphics.



    They way Apple tests their Macs is very fair, but unless you are playing Flash video in Safari it's likely not going to interact with the GPU much, if at all.
    Quote:

    Testing conducted by Apple in March 2010 using preproduction 2.66GHz Intel Core i7?based MacBook Pro units. Battery life depends on configuration and use. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information. The wireless productivity test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing various websites and editing text in a word processing document with display brightness set to 50%.



    I'm sure we'll see some testing this week on GPU turned on and the result under Windows.
  • Reply 46 of 72
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    I wonder what Intel thinks of Apple's advertising of Intel's integrated graphics chip. When performance is not needed, use Intel. When you need performance, switch to NVidia. Intel would like people to think their solution is the greatest thing since sliced bread but in reality, it's nowhere near what it should be.



    No, they don't. Intel isn't stupid. They know that their solution is a low-end, budget solution.



    I suspect they're a lot more disappointed that Apple went with C2D and Nvidia for the 13" than they are with the use of discrete graphics option on the higher end.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frankie View Post


    What about the 13". Seems that one got screwed...



    Oh, yea. 30-80% faster on real life applications, more base RAM, faster GPU, and significantly longer battery life - all for the same price. I'm sure the 13" buyers really got screwed.
  • Reply 47 of 72
    rbonnerrbonner Posts: 635member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by M3rc Nate View Post


    So this is why they added the anti-glare? Glossy is REALLY bad even with a little light? I plan on getting a MBP and one of the things im hung up on is glossy vs anti glare. I just LOVE how glossy looks. But idk, its really that bad for everyone?



    I have a glossy and don't notice the glare much anymore. I suspect thAt folks that keep complaining are seeing it all the time.

    You always find what your looking for.
  • Reply 48 of 72
    gmcalpingmcalpin Posts: 266member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by M3rc Nate View Post


    So this is why they added the anti-glare? Glossy is REALLY bad even with a little light? I plan on getting a MBP and one of the things im hung up on is glossy vs anti glare. I just LOVE how glossy looks. But idk, its really that bad for everyone?



    The richer, more accurate colors the glossy screens get outweighs any minor inconvenience of occasionally needing to make sure my back isn't to a window.



    I don't get any more eye strain from glossy monitors than any other screen; I don't know what people are talking about. Maybe their eyeballs are just weaklings.
  • Reply 49 of 72
    haha well thanks, that really helps. I think il end up going with glossy...even though the area in my room i plan on sitting with the MBP has a huge window right behind me hahaha..but il live, and it'l have blinds so i can just adjust so light comes into room but isnt all over the screen. Thanks gmcalpin.
  • Reply 50 of 72
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,653member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post


    HAHAHAHAHA! yes, identical functionality - well, identical *except for the fact that Apple's implementation actually shuts down the integrated graphics when it switches to discreet, and also identical except for the fact Apple's solution is completely automatic behind the scenes as opposed to the user managing applications in the preference panel.



    Just like everything else in technology, Apple just does it better.



    Brianb seems to have fallen off the radar after that little faux pas. He must be at the corner restaurant eating the humble-pie special.
  • Reply 51 of 72
    s.metcalfs.metcalf Posts: 902member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post


    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.



    Agreed on the form factor, though they will likely subtly refine it and slim it like they have the iMacs.



    I'd like to know more details about the graphics switching, like exactly how fast will it switch and when does the OS deem switching to the discreet graphics necessary? I assume there will be no option to use the GT 630M exclusively...can someone confirm?



    I ask because so much of the UI is now graphics hardware accelerated. Be it minimising full screen windows or browsing lots of photos in in a full screen Coverflow, I can definitely notice the difference with overall UI responsiveness between the 9400M and 9600 GT in the previous generation. For this reason, I leave it almost exclusively in "Higher Performance" mode with the 9600M GT, and only bother to switch if I need to get as much usage out of the battery as I can



    Having said this I'll probably still upgrade....
  • Reply 52 of 72
    avidfcpavidfcp Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post


    That has been apparent ever since AMD started kicking Intel's butt a decode or more ago, when comparing clockspeed vs. clockspeed (or dollar for dollar, but that's a different point).



    Clock speed used to form a part of the chip's name. It used to be everything. But not anymore.



    In modern times, the architecture is just as important as the clockspeed.



    I dint want to argue but everyone has it wrong.

    Clock speed matters now.



    Back in the day it did matter then Apple and AMD made sure intel needed another 1ghz to compete. The duo core ended that. But now clock speeds still matter.



    If you have a duo i7 4.0 it's going to slame a 2.0.



    Long story short, it mattered, then it didn't now it does again. I just wish Amd would come up with something so intels cpu price war would start again, reducing their pricing. Sure, archatech still matters but so doesn't fsb and fpu as well as clock speeds. That's why the same class if chip, ie i7 2.66 vs 3.0, the 3.0 is going to be much faster.



    The shame though is apple should release a 4/8 core midrange headless i7:i5 for about 1/3 to 1/2 cheaper then the server class mac pros for the ProSumer musician, editor, content producer. Late.
  • Reply 53 of 72
    s.metcalfs.metcalf Posts: 902member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post


    The shame though is apple should release a 4/8 core midrange headless i7:i5 for about 1/3 to 1/2 cheaper then the server class mac pros for the ProSumer musician, editor, content producer. Late.



    I think you should email SJobs and tell him just that!!!
  • Reply 54 of 72
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fatfred View Post


    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 :]



    $400 for an extra 4 gigs? Can I please some of this money that you spend so freely and irresponsibly?
  • Reply 55 of 72
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by M3rc Nate View Post


    So this is why they added the anti-glare? Glossy is REALLY bad even with a little light? I plan on getting a MBP and one of the things im hung up on is glossy vs anti glare. I just LOVE how glossy looks. But idk, its really that bad for everyone?



    Just ignore the whiners. Glossy is what looks good and is what you should get. Put it next to a matte screen and the comparison is pathetic. The matte screen belongs in the 1990s and it looks that way.



    There are people with no lives and nothing better to do, that will expend effort to criticize the glossy screens, for no other reason than negatively affecting others lives by convincing them that idiots on the internetz matter.
  • Reply 56 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spudit View Post


    Aside from moving to the latest chipset, what else is there?



    I was waiting for this update to purchase, but was hoping for a little something extra.



    If it ain't broke don't fix it.



    What "little something" did you want? Something we might all want also or did you just wanna be SURPRISED!?
  • Reply 57 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post


    In modern times, the architecture is just as important as the clockspeed.



    Architecture was always as important as clock speed. The RISC boys (MIPS, SPARC, etc) were regularly kicking Intel's butt until Intel gained the critical mass to afford really pushing its silicon process. Then it was game over, their architectural advantage rendered irrelevant because their clock speed lagged so severely. Spending a billion dollars every CPU revision makes no sense when you're only pushing 50-100k units a year, compared to the tens of millions being sold by Intel.
  • Reply 58 of 72
    slackulaslackula Posts: 262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post


    I think you should email SJobs and tell him just that!!!



    And S.J.'s e-mailed reply would be: "Noted."
  • Reply 59 of 72
    rbonnerrbonner Posts: 635member
    Went to the apple store today, they had all the models. The high res was pretty nice on both the 15" and the 17", will go with that.



    The anti-glare was also nice, but the colors did look a bit muted. The recommendation was that if I was going to do a lot of outside work, anti-glare was the way to go. I do some outside work, but have found that I can find a good screen angle that works, so will stay with glossy. (oh, the silver trim on the anti-glare makes it look like an older mac.)



    So now, just the work to find the right processor.
  • Reply 60 of 72
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbonner View Post


    Went to the apple store today, they had all the models. The high res was pretty nice on both the 15" and the 17", will go with that.



    The anti-glare was also nice, but the colors did look a bit muted. The recommendation was that if I was going to do a lot of outside work, anti-glare was the way to go. I do some outside work, but have found that I can find a good screen angle that works, so will stay with glossy. (oh, the silver trim on the anti-glare makes it look like an older mac.)



    So now, just the work to find the right processor.



    I spent time at an Apple Store today checking them out. They didn't have the high-res 15" but they had a 17" which is only slightly higher ppi. I didn't care for the small text.
    • 13" MBP = 113ppi

    • 15" MBP = 110ppi

    • 15" MBP HR = 129ppi

    • 17" MBP = 133ppi

    The 13" MBP was nice. It's what I'm leaning toward. The force acceleration of the new trackpads worked great.



    I tried to test the battery duration of the new 15" MBPs with switchable graphics. There was no reported change when switching between 720p videos in YouTube using HTML5 and Flash or any other tests trying to force the GPU over the IGP. Whether you checked the box in Power Savings to let the system decide which graphics option to use or unchecked it to only use the discrete GPU there was no change to the system acted. Turns out the never added yesterday's update to those MBPs. It was going to take 2 hours to DL so I didn't bother.



    I didn't see an option to only use the IGP, which would be nice if you are only on battery and wish to preserve power. Since Apple's setup is more thorough than other graphics switching methods I don't think it would be hard to make an option to automatically throttle if you are on power or plugged, which is the way I'd prefer to use it. Maybe it's a PLIST file but I looked and didn't see the option.



    They are still using 3Gbps SATA II and there is no word (yet) if they fixed the SATA controller issue that was plaguing 3rd-party drive performance. Was hoping they would have gone with 6Gbps SATA III with the push toward SSD.
Sign In or Register to comment.