Purported 13" MacBook Pro specs show USB 3.0, Ivy Bridge, no Retina display

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 131
    robogoborobogobo Posts: 378member
    d00d wrote: »
    Last paragraph makes a lot of sense. Apple is really known to fragment their product line. Having three distinct models in for the 13" sounds really likely. (end I have no idea what I'm talking about)

    Fixed it for you.
  • Reply 62 of 131
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bwik View Post

    Well, I had a 2.33ghz core duo macbook pro in early 2007.  It had 3GB of RAM and eventually a 500GB hard drive so yeah, I'd say that was comparable.


     


    Do you understand that processors change? I'm honestly asking here. Unless you don't know that, you can't possibly think your Merom was anything like what this will be.


     


    RAM also changes.




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

    I have been holding off on upgrading my 2009 17" MacBook Pro waiting for a more significant upgrade.  I am curious to see the other models, but this supposed leak is not encouraging.



     


    I pose the same question to you, then.

  • Reply 63 of 131
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    I hope they keep the optical drive.  Not to use, necessarily, but because you can pull it out and add a second drive, such as an SSD or a large capacity drive.  If they remove the optical drive, there will be no room to do this.


     


    And don't give me this thunderbolt crap.  I want a single piece of hardware, not a bunch of dongles hanging off cables.



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    So you want them to keep it so that you don't use it at all and then have to have a dongle hanging off a cable to use. I see.



     


    If he doesn't use an optical drive, then why would he need a dongle to an optical drive?


    Sometimes you just type and don't read...

  • Reply 64 of 131
    negafoxnegafox Posts: 480member



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Do you understand that processors change? I'm honestly asking here. Unless you don't know that, you can't possibly think your Merom was anything like what this will be.


     


    RAM also changes.




     


     


    I pose the same question to you, then.



    X86 CPU performance has largely been stagnant over the past few years. The emphasis has been on efficiency rather than performance. Seeing Apple bump the default RAM to 6 or 8 GB would be nice though.

  • Reply 65 of 131
    xioniumxionium Posts: 9member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Negafox View Post


    I am seriously hoping this is fake.  These specs are terrible, let alone even calling this atrocious thing a "Mac Book Pro".





    I feel identical man.... with all the hype this thing has been getting (especially on AI posts etc) since FEB when my 2007-Trusty-Rusty-MBP chip started smoking on the mobo, I have seen the rumours on AI and thus decided to wait for these 'wonderful' specs.... if these are truely what is going to be released, then that basically wipes the last 100 front page headlines of 'dont upgrade now..... wait for the revolutionary change!!!' right off the map.... well said.

  • Reply 66 of 131
    mytdavemytdave Posts: 437member


    These specs are completely believable.  Apple is well known for releasing less-than-stellar updates.  Their quality is excellent, and the upgrade is reasonable, but it's not really exciting at all.  At a bare minimum they should ship it with a 1440x900 screen - a 1280x800 one is just soooo lame.  Glad to see Firewire is retained - it's still very useful (and a lot cheaper than Thunderbolt). Needs more RAM and a 7200-rpm drive.

  • Reply 67 of 131
    ttollertonttollerton Posts: 195member


    THIS IS FAKE.  APPLE REFERS TO IT'S OPERATING SYSTEM AS OS X, NOT MAC OS X


     


    If this, indeed, from a source inside Apple, it is, at best, a misdirection.  The rumor mill is getting too close to 100% accurate, and Apple is trying to maintain the guessing...


     


    Tom

  • Reply 68 of 131
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

    If he doesn't use an optical drive, then why would he need a dongle to an optical drive?


    Sometimes you just type and don't read...



     


    I'm tiptoeing around the nonsense that is "put it in so I don't use it".


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

    X86 CPU performance has largely been stagnant over the past few years.


     


    So a 2012 laptop isn't faster than a 2006 laptop. Good to know.

  • Reply 69 of 131
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Negafox View Post


    The same thing I thought of the current 13" as well.  I bought my wife an HP laptop for $999 a year and a half ago that has better specs than that.


     


    I have been holding off on upgrading my 2009 17" MacBook Pro waiting for a more significant upgrade.  I am curious to see the other models, but this supposed leak is not encouraging.



    I wouldn't expect it on a tick generation. You should know by now that Apple rarely competes on specs to price point ratios. I buy them too. There are times when Apple is really competitive on specs. Most of the time they aren't, but if the machine I want doesn't have known issues, I end up paying it. Typically I don't buy directly from Apple. I either look for a cheaper price from a third party retailer, or I look for one nearby that can handle warranty repairs if I have any problems later on. 


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Do you understand that processors change? I'm honestly asking here. Unless you don't know that, you can't possibly think your Merom was anything like what this will be.


     


    RAM also changes.




     


     


    I pose the same question to you, then.



    Merom was actually a pretty solid change in itself.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Negafox View Post


    X86 CPU performance has largely been stagnant over the past few years. The emphasis has been on efficiency rather than performance. Seeing Apple bump the default RAM to 6 or 8 GB would be nice though.



    They've improved at the lower power levels. Perhaps this is what you meant by efficiency? Sandy Bridge mobile cpus can handle an impressive amount of things that would have choked prior cpu generations.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ttollerton View Post


     


     


    If this, indeed, from a source inside Apple, it is, at best, a misdirection.  The rumor mill is getting too close to 100% accurate, and Apple is trying to maintain the guessing...


     


    Tom



    That's a good catch, but it was a recent change. I haven't noticed any recent packaging. It's easy to fake either way. Being printed doesn't change that. Print out faked label, photograph with camera phone.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    I'm tiptoeing around the nonsense that is "put it in so I don't use it".


     


     


    So a 2012 laptop isn't faster than a 2006 laptop. Good to know.



    Blame intel for starting the mhz myth in the first place.

  • Reply 70 of 131
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    Blame intel for starting the mhz myth in the first place.



     


    No, really, is THAT what he's basing his statements on?!

  • Reply 71 of 131
    gs turngs turn Posts: 30member


    The spec's many are hoping for would make the MAC Pro the same computer as the MAC Air. Why would Apple do that. They can just add a faster processor to the Air and meet all your needs. The Pro fills a different area. Many using the Pro can move to an Air but why would they make the Pro be the same computer as the Air.

  • Reply 72 of 131
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by storie View Post


    Guess what?


     


    One simple reason I believe it's not genuine.


     


    On any MacBook packaging with this kind of label, the amount of graphics memory is always printed after the graphics card.


     


    Example: Intel HD Graphics 3000 with 384MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory


     


    Yet on this label: Intel HD Graphics 4000


     


    Is it expected that Apple would mention less on this label?


     


    BTW this is my first comment ever, how exciting. Lol.



    For a FTP, I would say GOOD CALL!!!.  Thanks for the contribution.

  • Reply 73 of 131
    shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member


    Since they deleted the old white MB they have been lacking an entry level model for schools, college kids, etc.


     


    So maybe they have downgraded the 13" MBP to a 13" MB making it the new entry level MB at $799.


     


    Keep the old design and CD/DVD drive to make it a good all round entry level model.


     


    Makes perfect sense to me - that way you get back to 3 distinct lines again, with updated MBAs and redesigned MBPs.

  • Reply 74 of 131
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member


    Maybe this model is going to be the MacBook, not the MacBook Pro.  MacBook users don't really need retina displays.  And maybe the case is plastic instead of aluminum. Just a WILD A$$ GUESS.    It's worth a shot.

  • Reply 75 of 131
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Why in the world would Apple bring back the "MacBook", save to call all their computers by that name?

  • Reply 76 of 131
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    negafox wrote: »
    X86 CPU performance has largely been stagnant over the past few years. The emphasis has been on efficiency rather than performance. Seeing Apple bump the default RAM to 6 or 8 GB would be nice though.

    Efficiency IS performance.

    You seem to be equating 'performance' with clock speed. That's not the case. Greater instructions per clock in today's processors mean that performance is significantly better even at the same clock speed.

    For example. I have the same 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo highlighted below. A current 2.7 GHz i7 iMac is roughly 4 times the performance, even though the clock speed is only about 15% greater.
    bwik wrote: »
    Well, I had a 2.33ghz core duo macbook pro in early 2007.  It had 3GB of RAM and eventually a 500GB hard drive so yeah, I'd say that was comparable.  Not as good as this new product, but not like a very meaningful leap, either.

    The main advance appears to be unibody structure, IMO.  Now that was a giant leap.

    I have that same system and would have upgraded a long time ago if money weren't tight. A current MacBook Pro is at least twice as fast and more like three times as fast in many tests. Clock speed doesn't tell you everything. Equally importantly, my system MAXES OUT at 3 GB of RAM - and more RAM greatly improves performance. And that's not even considering the video performance.
  • Reply 77 of 131
    If this is the new '$999' entry level non SSD notebook, then I'm sure Apple will sell at ton of them. Remember, Apple needs to keep a legacy machine in the lineup that hits the $999 price point, as many schools/universities had relied upon that pricepoint/model as their Go2 machine.

    Hell, if this model is $999, I might pass up a $1700 Macbook Pro refresh for it. With a refreshed chassis, Apple might take away the ability to swap out the hard drive easily, and if that's the case, I'm buying the last unibody model I can get my hands on and ride that machine out as long as I can.
  • Reply 78 of 131
    negafoxnegafox Posts: 480member



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Efficiency IS performance.

    You seem to be equating 'performance' with clock speed. That's not the case. Greater instructions per clock in today's processors mean that performance is significantly better even at the same clock speed.

    For example. I have the same 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo highlighted below. A current 2.7 GHz i7 iMac is roughly 4 times the performance, even though the clock speed is only about 15% greater.

    I have that same system and would have upgraded a long time ago if money weren't tight. A current MacBook Pro is at least twice as fast and more like three times as fast in many tests. Clock speed doesn't tell you everything. Equally importantly, my system MAXES OUT at 3 GB of RAM - and more RAM greatly improves performance. And that's not even considering the video performance.


    I am talking about real-world benchmarks (application performance), not clock speed. Clock speed became irrelevant with the demise of the Intel Pentium 4.

  • Reply 79 of 131
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

    I am talking about real-world benchmarks (application performance), not clock speed. Clock speed became irrelevant with the demise of the Intel Pentium 4.


     


    Then you're even more wrong, so I'm not sure what you're after… 

  • Reply 80 of 131
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    negafox wrote: »
    I am talking about real-world benchmarks (application performance), not clock speed. Clock speed became irrelevant with the demise of the Intel Pentium 4.

    Here is a test: which has higher performance? How do you know this?

    i7-3520M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.90 GHz)
    i7-2617M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.50 GHz)

    A:
    Spoiler:


    PS: No font options in the new forum?
Sign In or Register to comment.