Quad core CPUs with low MHz? That sucks. Also, Intel 3000 integrated - that sucks. I'll skip this iteration. And ThunderBolt? Any devices out there that support it? Apple just lost the game.
At least the 6750 is a DX11 card heh. Notebookcheck.net considers both GPUs to be midrange cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotApple
Quad core CPUs with low MHz? That sucks. Also, Intel 3000 integrated - that sucks. I'll skip this iteration. And ThunderBolt? Any devices out there that support it? Apple just lost the game.
You have it backwards. Everything doesn't have to support Thunderbolt, its upports everything. No need to gripe that you can't plug an esata device into your 15" MBP, just pick up an adapter and plug it into your Thunderbolt port. Voila. Also you do realize that the fastest quad (non-extreme) Sandy Bridge processor is only 2.3GHz right? The 2.3 is available as a BTO option. Read a bit before you bitch about the chips.
So here's a question. Thunderbolt is currently carrying PCI Express and DisplayPort. Would it be possible to put an external GPU on it? Is the bandwidth & speed high enough to support that? Imagine a 13" MBP with an external PCI Express rack with a fast graphics card. Or am I deluded?
So, I'll strech my MacBook upgrade cycle for another year. Hope that they'll drop the DVD drive by then and slim the devices down. And 1280x800 pixel on a premium 13" in 2011? Come on...
How are the graphics chips "old"? I understand that Intel's graphics chips are less capable than AMD or nVidia's, but the HD 3000 chipset is specific to the Sandy Bridge platform, which has been out for about seven weeks now.
I think it's because of the Intel graphics heritage (crap, behind the times) and feature set support (no OpenCL, etc) - which is old.
ThunderBolt looks good - it's tunnelled PCIe. To make a Thunderbolt I/O device you add a Thunderport demux chip from Intel, and a Thunderbolt port (== Mini Displayport). The demux chip provides you with a standard PCIe connection (probably PCIe x4?) for standard PCIe peripherals - no new silicon design needed. This means products on the market very soon.
Please give me a speed comparison between my Imac 3.06ghz Intel core duo 2 vs the new Macbook Pro 2.0 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 with the same amount of ram. I have no idea if a 2.0 core i7 matches up favorably with a 3.06 core duo 2. If I does I want the Macbook instead.
Core 2 Duo - Two threads - 2 x 3.06GHz
Core i7 - Eight threads, Four cores - 4 x 2.0GHz
Core i7 also is around 20-30% faster per clock (haven't got the exact figures).
Core i7 can also Turbo for non-threaded workloads, I think up to 2.9GHz for a single core, but possibly up to 3.4GHz in that situation.
I would say in most scenarios the MacBook is faster than the Core 2 Duo, possibly scarily faster.
Quad core CPUs with low MHz? That sucks. Also, Intel 3000 integrated - that sucks. I'll skip this iteration. And ThunderBolt? Any devices out there that support it? Apple just lost the game.
Troll go home.
If not troll, then read about Turbo and how it works with Intel's Sandy Bridge chips.
HD3000 graphics might suck ... but they also overclock so for most uses they will be adequate. Gaming will still be poor, you'll want the HD6750M based MacBook for that.
So here's a question. Thunderbolt is currently carrying PCI Express and DisplayPort. Would it be possible to put an external GPU on it? Is the bandwidth & speed high enough to support that? Imagine a 13" MBP with an external PCI Express rack with a fast graphics card. Or am I deluded?
- Jasen.
Technically - yes.
However 10Gbps is great for a cable, but PCIe-2 x16 internally does 80Gbps. And fast graphics cards do make use of it.
But you could connect a HD6490M via ThunderBolt, give it enough RAM and it should perform okay. Might be a little market in such adaptors for people with 13" MacBooks!
Since when has Apple given away new software for older Macs? Every time there is a new iLife suite released, it is only free and included with new Mac purchases. It's not like we can go online and download the updates for free.
This is NOT productivity software equivalent to iLife. This software is the equivalent to iChat - MINUS features...and iChat is free with OSX. I guess you did not read my entire post.
Quad core CPUs with low MHz? That sucks. Also, Intel 3000 integrated - that sucks. I'll skip this iteration. And ThunderBolt? Any devices out there that support it? Apple just lost the game.
I agree EXCEPT for the light peak comment. When Apple introduced USB there wasn't anything that used it for a while. This isn't just an Apple creation...it is also an Intel standard. Give it time.
Really? Integrated Intel graphic chips in a MacBook Pro? Can you really classify this as a Pro product? Go Thunderbolt!
Don't you get tired from saying that for four years straight? I certainly did. But then again, if you need professional graphics, you're not buying a laptop, anyway.
Yes. Go Thunderbolt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Malcolm in 1995 on Isla Sorna
Jobs creates personal computer. Jobs reinvents personal computer. Jobs spearheads USB. Jobs destroys ADB. Jobs reinvents tablet computer. Jobs destroys personal computer. Jobs spearheads Thunderbolt. Jobs destroys USB.
That quote might be a little off; it's been a while since 1995.
I'm surprised that battery life went down, across the board. Faster processors, and some new goodies like Thunderbolt, but largely unremarkable. But the 13" used to boast 10 hours, and the 15-17" boasted 8-9 hours, and now battery life is just 7 hours.
This steers me much more towards a Macbook Air. I was hoping that, based on Jobs' comments that the new Air represented 'the future of the Macbook line', that it was immenent in this refresh. Even the Air webpage says "the next generation of Macbooks." Yet what we get in this refresh is mostly just faster old-skool technology. If the MBP had longer battery life and solid-state storage, I would have gone with a MBP. A 13" MBP configured with a 256GB SSD is $2550, compared to $1800 for a maxed-out Air. You end up trading a slower processor for lighter weight, but both have the same battery life.
No 13? matte option. Suck for few that weren?t going to buy a new Mac unless it was an option across the board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
I'm surprised that battery life went down, across the board. Faster processors, and some new goodies like Thunderbolt, but largely unremarkable. But the 13" used to boast 10 hours, and the 15-17" boasted 8-9 hours, and now battery life is just 7 hours.
The battery life hasn?t gone done. They?ve merely changed the way they measure usage. Jobs stated they were going to do this last year and their MBP pages explain this change in how the measure real world usage.
This was no re-design for sure, it is a Intel update (processor and Thunderbolt).... what has Apple been doing for the last two years? working on the air?
Because I need a laptop I will still be buying one today or ordering depending one what they have in stock.
Quad core makes me happy...
Thunderbolt... time will tell (if I can add it to my mac pro then it is worth something)
The USB ports should be USB3 in the corporate world people will not be running around with Thunderbolt drives so the extra speed over USB2 would have been nice.
May I now laugh at all those Photoshop "experts" who were screaming "fake!!!" and argued about "faulty angles" and whatnot in those Thunderbolt port pics yesterday. BWAHAHAHAA.
Not much of an update at all. I'm disappointed. At a minimum, I expected something considerably lighter and what's with the same crappy, slow hard-drive?
Comments
Quad core CPUs with low MHz? That sucks. Also, Intel 3000 integrated - that sucks. I'll skip this iteration. And ThunderBolt? Any devices out there that support it? Apple just lost the game.
You have it backwards. Everything doesn't have to support Thunderbolt, its upports everything. No need to gripe that you can't plug an esata device into your 15" MBP, just pick up an adapter and plug it into your Thunderbolt port. Voila. Also you do realize that the fastest quad (non-extreme) Sandy Bridge processor is only 2.3GHz right? The 2.3 is available as a BTO option. Read a bit before you bitch about the chips.
- Jasen.
How are the graphics chips "old"? I understand that Intel's graphics chips are less capable than AMD or nVidia's, but the HD 3000 chipset is specific to the Sandy Bridge platform, which has been out for about seven weeks now.
I think it's because of the Intel graphics heritage (crap, behind the times) and feature set support (no OpenCL, etc) - which is old.
ThunderBolt looks good - it's tunnelled PCIe. To make a Thunderbolt I/O device you add a Thunderport demux chip from Intel, and a Thunderbolt port (== Mini Displayport). The demux chip provides you with a standard PCIe connection (probably PCIe x4?) for standard PCIe peripherals - no new silicon design needed. This means products on the market very soon.
Please give me a speed comparison between my Imac 3.06ghz Intel core duo 2 vs the new Macbook Pro 2.0 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 with the same amount of ram. I have no idea if a 2.0 core i7 matches up favorably with a 3.06 core duo 2. If I does I want the Macbook instead.
Core 2 Duo - Two threads - 2 x 3.06GHz
Core i7 - Eight threads, Four cores - 4 x 2.0GHz
Core i7 also is around 20-30% faster per clock (haven't got the exact figures).
Core i7 can also Turbo for non-threaded workloads, I think up to 2.9GHz for a single core, but possibly up to 3.4GHz in that situation.
I would say in most scenarios the MacBook is faster than the Core 2 Duo, possibly scarily faster.
Quad core CPUs with low MHz? That sucks. Also, Intel 3000 integrated - that sucks. I'll skip this iteration. And ThunderBolt? Any devices out there that support it? Apple just lost the game.
Troll go home.
If not troll, then read about Turbo and how it works with Intel's Sandy Bridge chips.
HD3000 graphics might suck ... but they also overclock so for most uses they will be adequate. Gaming will still be poor, you'll want the HD6750M based MacBook for that.
So here's a question. Thunderbolt is currently carrying PCI Express and DisplayPort. Would it be possible to put an external GPU on it? Is the bandwidth & speed high enough to support that? Imagine a 13" MBP with an external PCI Express rack with a fast graphics card. Or am I deluded?
- Jasen.
Technically - yes.
However 10Gbps is great for a cable, but PCIe-2 x16 internally does 80Gbps. And fast graphics cards do make use of it.
But you could connect a HD6490M via ThunderBolt, give it enough RAM and it should perform okay. Might be a little market in such adaptors for people with 13" MacBooks!
Since when has Apple given away new software for older Macs? Every time there is a new iLife suite released, it is only free and included with new Mac purchases. It's not like we can go online and download the updates for free.
This is NOT productivity software equivalent to iLife. This software is the equivalent to iChat - MINUS features...and iChat is free with OSX. I guess you did not read my entire post.
Quad core CPUs with low MHz? That sucks. Also, Intel 3000 integrated - that sucks. I'll skip this iteration. And ThunderBolt? Any devices out there that support it? Apple just lost the game.
I agree EXCEPT for the light peak comment. When Apple introduced USB there wasn't anything that used it for a while. This isn't just an Apple creation...it is also an Intel standard. Give it time.
Really? Integrated Intel graphic chips in a MacBook Pro? Can you really classify this as a Pro product? Go Thunderbolt!
Don't you get tired from saying that for four years straight? I certainly did. But then again, if you need professional graphics, you're not buying a laptop, anyway.
Yes. Go Thunderbolt.
Jobs creates personal computer. Jobs reinvents personal computer. Jobs spearheads USB. Jobs destroys ADB. Jobs reinvents tablet computer. Jobs destroys personal computer. Jobs spearheads Thunderbolt. Jobs destroys USB.
That quote might be a little off; it's been a while since 1995.
This steers me much more towards a Macbook Air. I was hoping that, based on Jobs' comments that the new Air represented 'the future of the Macbook line', that it was immenent in this refresh. Even the Air webpage says "the next generation of Macbooks." Yet what we get in this refresh is mostly just faster old-skool technology. If the MBP had longer battery life and solid-state storage, I would have gone with a MBP. A 13" MBP configured with a 256GB SSD is $2550, compared to $1800 for a maxed-out Air. You end up trading a slower processor for lighter weight, but both have the same battery life.
I'm surprised that battery life went down, across the board. Faster processors, and some new goodies like Thunderbolt, but largely unremarkable. But the 13" used to boast 10 hours, and the 15-17" boasted 8-9 hours, and now battery life is just 7 hours.
The battery life hasn?t gone done. They?ve merely changed the way they measure usage. Jobs stated they were going to do this last year and their MBP pages explain this change in how the measure real world usage.
Because I need a laptop I will still be buying one today or ordering depending one what they have in stock.
Quad core makes me happy...
Thunderbolt... time will tell (if I can add it to my mac pro then it is worth something)
The USB ports should be USB3 in the corporate world people will not be running around with Thunderbolt drives so the extra speed over USB2 would have been nice.
Such crap old graphics cards
Yeah lets benchmark them against a 3 year old game and a 6 year old game
The 6790 is old? LOLWTF?