AFAIK no MacBook Pro ever handled a 45W CPU as these run too hot (and drain the battery too quickly).
35W had always been the maximum.
According to above link these new quad-core i7 CPUs are all rated at 45W.
Did Apple find a better way of cooling these things?
Or are the CPUs throttled down so they can stay within 35-40W?
Could be throttled down by Apple itself, or a special bin requested by Apple from Intel (Thus my question about an Apple_SKU).
I would mind a faster one myself and live with the increased power draw (and fan noise), but we'll see whether that options comes to fruition. Probably not.
These are indeed quite incremental updates. I think the technology is out there to have done better, but there are some things to like and I wonder what the BTO options are.
2.0 GHz base speed on the processor is pathetic even disgusting
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz
Typical response from the uneducated. Clock speed is no longer a clear indicator of performance and is only a small part of the package itself
While yes, clock speed is no longer a good indicator, 2 GHz is pretty weak. There are still quite a few apps that don't take good advantage of multiple cores. And there are diminishing returns for adding cores. Going from one to two cores may almost double performance, but four cores won't quadruple performance, not even close.
I'm not saying 2 GHz won't happen, but I'll be very curious to see the performance numbers and how Apple markets it.
Why? LightPeak makes old ports forward compatible. We JUST had new displays.
New displays would be required if one wants to use the Thunderbolt port AND has a display hooked up. Otherwise, the optical connections (if they truly are optical) are inaccessible.
While yes, clock speed is no longer a good indicator, 2 GHz is pretty weak. There are still quite a few apps that don't take good advantage of multiple cores. And there are diminishing returns for adding cores. Going from one to two cores may almost double performance, but four cores won't quadruple performance, not even close.
I'm not saying 2 GHz won't happen, but I'll be very curious to see the performance numbers and how Apple markets it.
I am good with the numbers as long as it will step up. No reason for the chip to be a space heater when I am thinking. My thought is that this is probably why computers take over the world, they are board waiting for us to press a key, any key.
While yes, clock speed is no longer a good indicator, 2 GHz is pretty weak. There are still quite a few apps that don't take good advantage of multiple cores. And there are diminishing returns for adding cores. Going from one to two cores may almost double performance, but four cores won't quadruple performance, not even close.it.
Which is why Intel added Turbo Boost to their multi-core CPU's, as stated elsewhere. If the CPU thinks you are not running enough at the same time to warrant using all cores, it simply shuts them down and increases the frequency of the other ones, to get the best of both worlds: multi-core performance where possible, single-threaded performance otherwise. It's been in the i series for over a year.
Typical response from the uneducated. Clock speed is no longer a clear indicator of performance and is only a small part of the package itself.
Clock speed is a clear indicator of performance within a family of processors. The problem is we have a new architecture that does much better based on instructions executed per clock and then Apple pisses all that away by underclocking the processor. That clearly sucks.
Quote:
The multi cores work together at the base 2.0Ghz speed but if you are running a non multi-threaded application it will 'power off' 3 cores and boost the clock speed of a single core, in this case probably to 2.8GHZ or 3.0Ghz
Do you think that I didn't know this when I wrote my comments? Beyound that "probably" isn't a very firm position to take, until we see exactly how Apple has clocked the machine and set up the firmware we don't know what the boost clock will be.
The big problem is the massive roll back in performance if you make use of all those cores.
Quote:
Also, nice to see Apple going with AMD/Ati graphics. I steer clear of all nvidia based Macs as they are the weakest component. I have had 3 iMacs with nvidia all fail due to a blown gpu card. The Ati iMacs have all been bulletproof. Having the option to switch to discreet graphics is good for an extra performance boost.
I have no specific problem with AMD GPUs and did not focus on that component. For my needs the rumored GPU is fine but for many it is pretty underwhelming for many others.
2.0 GHz base speed on the processor is pathetic even disgusting, i really don't care how much better the CPU is performance wise on a per cycle basis either.
2.0ghz quad core on a mobile platform is pathetic?
Nooo!!!!! 1680x1050 should be standard! I sure hope this is the low end model, or I'm waiting for the next rev!
These are poor updates, all the attention has been on iPhone and iPad. Poor neglected Mac division... Intel must have made Apple offers they couldn't refuse to keep Apple buying enough x86 stuff. These updates are all just Intel, Intel, Intel. I bet you the GPU is nothing much to sneeze at. 256mb RAM? What a F*** joke. 5400rpm drives? 1440x900? What is this, 2005?
2.0ghz quad core on a mobile platform is pathetic?
The CPU is no doubt impressive. But we all know nowadays for most tasks it's not all about the CPU. The fact that nothing else has changed much means basically in the last six months Intel has lobbied hard and furious to shove everything Intel up Apple as much as possible, and Apple took the bait.
And so much for gaming on the Mac, in one or two revisions iPad will have better gaming graphics than this "new" MBP 13" with Intel's BundleGate RubbishGPUs.
What? Radeon HD 6490M? That's a step backward from the GT 330M in the current ones. Apple doesn't do steps backward in the models with Dedi GPUs. Sideways, yes. Forward, yes. But going back to something about on par with the 9600M GT? Doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, it's 160 shaders - a new design (Caicos). It's probably there for OpenCL, it's probably not even twice as fast as the HD3000. Strange choice.
Comments
Well, it seems the be an Apple-SKU since the new mobile i7 quad-core chips should start at 2,2 Ghz, not 2.0:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3876/i...bridge-part-ii
AFAIK no MacBook Pro ever handled a 45W CPU as these run too hot (and drain the battery too quickly).
35W had always been the maximum.
According to above link these new quad-core i7 CPUs are all rated at 45W.
Did Apple find a better way of cooling these things?
Or are the CPUs throttled down so they can stay within 35-40W?
AFAIK no MacBook Pro ever handled a 45W CPU as these run too hot (and drain the battery too quickly).
35W had always been the maximum.
According to above link these new quad-core i7 CPUs are all rated at 45W.
Did Apple find a better way of cooling these things?
Or are the CPUs throttled down so they can stay within 35-40W?
Could be throttled down by Apple itself, or a special bin requested by Apple from Intel (Thus my question about an Apple_SKU).
I would mind a faster one myself and live with the increased power draw (and fan noise), but we'll see whether that options comes to fruition. Probably not.
2.0 GHz base speed on the processor is pathetic even disgusting
Typical response from the uneducated. Clock speed is no longer a clear indicator of performance and is only a small part of the package itself
While yes, clock speed is no longer a good indicator, 2 GHz is pretty weak. There are still quite a few apps that don't take good advantage of multiple cores. And there are diminishing returns for adding cores. Going from one to two cores may almost double performance, but four cores won't quadruple performance, not even close.
I'm not saying 2 GHz won't happen, but I'll be very curious to see the performance numbers and how Apple markets it.
Why? LightPeak makes old ports forward compatible. We JUST had new displays.
New displays would be required if one wants to use the Thunderbolt port AND has a display hooked up. Otherwise, the optical connections (if they truly are optical) are inaccessible.
While yes, clock speed is no longer a good indicator, 2 GHz is pretty weak. There are still quite a few apps that don't take good advantage of multiple cores. And there are diminishing returns for adding cores. Going from one to two cores may almost double performance, but four cores won't quadruple performance, not even close.
I'm not saying 2 GHz won't happen, but I'll be very curious to see the performance numbers and how Apple markets it.
I am good with the numbers as long as it will step up. No reason for the chip to be a space heater when I am thinking. My thought is that this is probably why computers take over the world, they are board waiting for us to press a key, any key.
While yes, clock speed is no longer a good indicator, 2 GHz is pretty weak. There are still quite a few apps that don't take good advantage of multiple cores. And there are diminishing returns for adding cores. Going from one to two cores may almost double performance, but four cores won't quadruple performance, not even close.it.
Which is why Intel added Turbo Boost to their multi-core CPU's, as stated elsewhere. If the CPU thinks you are not running enough at the same time to warrant using all cores, it simply shuts them down and increases the frequency of the other ones, to get the best of both worlds: multi-core performance where possible, single-threaded performance otherwise. It's been in the i series for over a year.
Typical response from the uneducated. Clock speed is no longer a clear indicator of performance and is only a small part of the package itself.
Clock speed is a clear indicator of performance within a family of processors. The problem is we have a new architecture that does much better based on instructions executed per clock and then Apple pisses all that away by underclocking the processor. That clearly sucks.
The multi cores work together at the base 2.0Ghz speed but if you are running a non multi-threaded application it will 'power off' 3 cores and boost the clock speed of a single core, in this case probably to 2.8GHZ or 3.0Ghz
Do you think that I didn't know this when I wrote my comments? Beyound that "probably" isn't a very firm position to take, until we see exactly how Apple has clocked the machine and set up the firmware we don't know what the boost clock will be.
The big problem is the massive roll back in performance if you make use of all those cores.
Also, nice to see Apple going with AMD/Ati graphics. I steer clear of all nvidia based Macs as they are the weakest component. I have had 3 iMacs with nvidia all fail due to a blown gpu card. The Ati iMacs have all been bulletproof. Having the option to switch to discreet graphics is good for an extra performance boost.
I have no specific problem with AMD GPUs and did not focus on that component. For my needs the rumored GPU is fine but for many it is pretty underwhelming for many others.
2.0 GHz base speed on the processor is pathetic even disgusting, i really don't care how much better the CPU is performance wise on a per cycle basis either.
2.0ghz quad core on a mobile platform is pathetic?
Nooo!!!!! 1680x1050 should be standard! I sure hope this is the low end model, or I'm waiting for the next rev!
These are poor updates, all the attention has been on iPhone and iPad. Poor neglected Mac division... Intel must have made Apple offers they couldn't refuse to keep Apple buying enough x86 stuff. These updates are all just Intel, Intel, Intel. I bet you the GPU is nothing much to sneeze at. 256mb RAM? What a F*** joke. 5400rpm drives? 1440x900? What is this, 2005?
2.0ghz quad core on a mobile platform is pathetic?
The CPU is no doubt impressive. But we all know nowadays for most tasks it's not all about the CPU. The fact that nothing else has changed much means basically in the last six months Intel has lobbied hard and furious to shove everything Intel up Apple as much as possible, and Apple took the bait.
And so much for gaming on the Mac, in one or two revisions iPad will have better gaming graphics than this "new" MBP 13" with Intel's BundleGate RubbishGPUs.
It just appeared today!
2.0 GHz base speed on the processor is pathetic even disgusting,
It's a quad-core CPU that has a turbo function for when fewer cores are in use.
2.0GHz is a BASE clock. This chip can go up to 2.9GHz.
In addition the graphics can Turbo from 650MHz to 1100MHz (2630QM) or even 1200MHz (2635QM).
Stop and think before spouting off, eh?
People, this is without a doubt the baseline 15" model. I am sure that there are upgrades available in terms of CPU and graphics (better be).
Base is an apt word. How long has the base model been at 256mb VRAM? 3 years now?
What? Radeon HD 6490M? That's a step backward from the GT 330M in the current ones. Apple doesn't do steps backward in the models with Dedi GPUs. Sideways, yes. Forward, yes. But going back to something about on par with the 9600M GT? Doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, it's 160 shaders - a new design (Caicos). It's probably there for OpenCL, it's probably not even twice as fast as the HD3000. Strange choice.
It looks like, pictured above, that the 17" has an AMD 6750 with 1gb. That is pretty legit, isn't it?
Sure, it is a great laptop with nice VRAM, excellent GPU. For a price.