[Wayland]

I still haven't upgraded from my ibook g4. I was thinking of *finally" pulling the trigger on a black friday deal. Does anyone know how much better the new intel processors are going to be for early next year? I am wondering if the next apple update is going to be evolutionary or revolutionary.

[P]

Well, everything depends on the money, but:

CPU-wise: yes, they're worth waiting for. GPU-wise: they will probably be worse unless you spring for discrete graphics. I even suspect that that Apple might stay with Core 2 at the low end.

I guess the answer is that if you're looking at the lower end of the range, buy if you find a deal, but if you're aiming higher, wait.

[Eug]

If you're coming from the iBook G4, I recommend you get a refurb white previous gen MacBook.

You can get a MacBook white with 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo, 2 GB RAM, 160 GB hard drive, and SuperDrive for $750. It even includes Firewire.

[Spheric Harlot]

Yeah, but if he goes for the previous-gen MacBook, he gets a previous-gen MacBook.

That's not gonna hold up over four years NEARLY as nicely as his iBook G4 did, or as a current-gen unibody white MacBook or previous-gen aluminum MacBook would.

[EndlessMac]

Originally Posted by P 

GPU-wise: they will probably be worse unless you spring for discrete graphics.

I take it you are saying that the low end new computers will have Intel integrated graphics cards rather than the better 9400 Nvidia? If that is true then the current non-discrete graphics laptops might be the better choice when it comes to graphics. The 9400 has respectable performance for an integrated graphics. Most people will not need a better option for their daily tasks.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by EndlessMac 

I take it you are saying that the low end new computers will have Intel integrated graphics cards rather than the better 9400 Nvidia?

This depends on the CPU. If it's an i3/i5 it's Arrandale which comes with its own graphics core. Which in all likelihood will suck compared to the 9400M. If OTOH the low-end stays C2D Penryn it will likely also retain the 9400.

If it's indeed Arrandale you'll want to get dedicated graphics, IOW a 15" or 17".

[Simon]

Actually i3 sucks anyway. Low clock, no HT, no TB, small cache, and slow graphics. I'd definitely prefer a 2.66 GHz Penryn on the next 13" MBP over an i3. If the MBP is stuck for another generation with dual cores, I'd want to see no less than an i5-520M on the 15".

[Wayland]

I would definitely go with a macbook pro 13" if I bought now. I don't care about using the latest technology. The ibook g4 does almost everything I want. The only real problems are with video conversion (for my ipod touch) and the fullscreen vs widescreen. Most everything is designed for widescreen now and all the scrolling sidewise is starting to bug me.

Does anyone remember if Amazon or Macconnection dropped their prices for blackfriday last year?

[P]

Core i3 actually has Hyperthreading, and the cache is 3 megs rather than 2. The clocks are low, though, and the turbo is indeed missing. I doubt Apple will use it other than maybe in the mini.

[P]

Originally Posted by EndlessMac 

I take it you are saying that the low end new computers will have Intel integrated graphics cards rather than the better 9400 Nvidia?

It will. The graphics core sits with the memory controller on integrated chips, and the memory controller moves into the CPU package on Arrandale. nVidia can't touch it.

The GPU will be the old GMA X3100 in the 2007 Macbooks, with 50% more hardware, and clocked more than twice as high. It will also have 60% more memory bandwidth - the same as the 9400m has today. Intel may also be using the CPU more for graphics than they have done before, as latency between CPU and GPU is so much lower. Those are a lot of boosts, but there is just no way I can add this up to compete with the 9400m, unless Intel has managed to do something really smart with regards to the CPU pitching in.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Yeah, but if he goes for the previous-gen MacBook, he gets a previous-gen MacBook.

That's not gonna hold up over four years NEARLY as nicely as his iBook G4 did, or as a current-gen unibody white MacBook or previous-gen aluminum MacBook would.

The previous-gen MacBook would hold up way better than an iBook G4, and I say this as an owner of an iBook G4.

[EndlessMac]

Originally Posted by Wayland 

Does anyone remember if Amazon or Macconnection dropped their prices for blackfriday last year?

I believe Amazon does have a black Friday sale but I don't know if they have much discounts for Apple computers.

Originally Posted by P 

...but there is just no way I can add this up to compete with the 9400m, unless Intel has managed to do something really smart with regards to the CPU pitching in.

Those are my thoughts too. Hopefully this means that Apple will provide discrete graphics for the high end 13" laptops for people who want performance but at a smaller size than a 15" or 17". It doesn't bother me because I prefer 15" anyway but I feel sorry for future 13" owners who have to live with the Intel integrated graphics. Well we shall see because it's way too earlier to say anything because we don't know how they will preform.

[Simon]

Regarding Arrandale's IGP here's something I remember from a benchmark I read a while back. They compared the IGP of an i5-540 (IOW the fastest i5 Arrandale expected in 1Q10) engineering sample with current integrated graphics solutions. While Arrandale's IGP on average did run roughly twice as fast as the Intel X4500HD used in current Intel mobile chipsets, it was also no more than half as fast as the 9400M found in the Nvidia MCP97 chipset Apple started using over a year ago.

Another way of putting this is that the 13" MBP better get dedicated graphics (unlikely) or else should return to being just a "MacBook". Anyone serious about graphics performance will not want to rely on Arrandale's IGP.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The previous-gen MacBook would hold up way better than an iBook G4, and I say this as an owner of an iBook G4.

I'm thinking case design, not so much internal hardware.

My 2006 Core 2 Duo MacBook is still doing fine, but it's on its third topcase.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

My 2006 Core 2 Duo MacBook is still doing fine, but it's on its third topcase.

Exactly the same as my 2006 CD BlackBook.

It's somewhat ironic because in the beginning the MB seemed so much sturdier than my 15" Al MBP which in comparison felt fragile. But the MacBook went on to crack and have its case replaced twice (not to mention the flickering backlight and screen replacements) while the MBP is still on its first case, no dents, no scratches, nothing. And now the unibodies are even sturdier than the old Al design. The new 'unibody' MB is going to have to be very solid to keep up. Especially when you consider its target audience.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Regarding Arrandale's IGP here's something I remember from a benchmark I read a while back. They compared the IGP of an i5-540 (IOW the fastest i5 Arrandale expected in 1Q10) engineering sample with current integrated graphics solutions. While Arrandale's IGP on average did run roughly twice as fast as the Intel X4500HD used in current Intel mobile chipsets, it was also no more than half as fast as the 9400M found in the Nvidia MCP97 chipset Apple started using over a year ago.

That's still a fairly impressive speedup, given that there is only a 20% boost in hardware and some 40% in clockspeed. Without driver improvements, we should see about 70% over 4500MHD, so there's already some driver improvements in that figure if it's a 100% boost.

nVidia's advantage in the 9400m is much higher shader performance. This exactly the type of thing that the CPU might help with. If Intel can manage to cook up a driver where the CPU does some of the shader work, they might have a chance, but seriously: is it so hard to make a chip that is wide enough? Intel produces a new chip (GMA X3000) and talks far and wide about it's new performance and how it will finally catch up to nVidia and ATi. It fails, spectacularly. Again. What do they do? They add 2 more pixel pipes to the original 8, and bump the clockspeed a little. Still nothing. They add 2 more, and bump the clockspeed again. What, it didn't work AGAIN? What's that definition of insanity again?

When you're failing like that, you don't add a little: You double the performance. You can't tell me that Intel has TDP problems in their northbridges, or that they're so large that they're inefficient to manufacture. Double the chip width with every revision until you've caught up to the 9400m. Clock the shaders as high as it takes - if nVidia can manage 1400 MHz at 65nm 2 years ago, Intel should damn well be able to manage the same at 45nm now.

[Eug]

My iBooks had cracks around the screen edges, and of course there were the dreaded dying logic boards, with relation to the video. My iBook G4 also had to get its screen replaced due to issues with the board connecting the hinge connector or something.

My first MacBook had to get the case replaced because of that discolouration issue. I didn't have the discolouration but I figured I may as well get it done.

My second MacBook needed a replacement for a crappy trackpad button.

Is the Unibody plastic MacBook better? Time will tell, but personally I'd rather just pay $750 for a refurb MacBook white (and get Firewire with it too), than pay 33% more for possibly a better case.

[imitchellg5]

Don't forget the battery... Which to me is worth it. Multitouch is nice, as is the LED backlight.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Time will tell, but personally I'd rather just pay $750 for a refurb MacBook white (and get Firewire with it too), than pay 33% more for possibly a better case.

The case is *WAY* sturdier; the machine is *much* more service-friendly (and if the unibody alu 'Books are any indication, comparatively devoid of issues); the display is MUCH improved (literally day-and-night); the battery lasts almost twice as long...

If I didn't absolutely need Firewire, it'd be a complete no-brainer. No WAY I'd go for the older design.

[Eug]

The aluBooks are not any indication, as they are... well... made of aluminum, not plastic.

I like buying the new toys as much as the other guy, and in fact I own the lastest 13" MacBook Pro, but I find the much better bang for the buck is almost always the cheapest refurb. low end model. You can even just sell it in a year (esp. before Apple Care runs out) and then buy another refurb the following year... and not lose much money in the process. I've done this a few times now actually.

Now, if you're talking coolness and features, sure, get the newest model (if you don't need Firewire). However, if you're talking value, the newest model often doesn't make as much sense.

[Spheric Harlot]

The alubooks are of the same design, both internally and externally, as the new unibody MacBook.

The metal parts have been replaced by plastic, which may or may not turn out to be as durable, but there is NO comparison to the older design.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The case is *WAY* sturdier; the machine is *much* more service-friendly (and if the unibody alu 'Books are any indication, comparatively devoid of issues); the display is MUCH improved (literally day-and-night); the battery lasts almost twice as long...

If I didn't absolutely need Firewire, it'd be a complete no-brainer. No WAY I'd go for the older design.

I'd go for the 13" MacBook Pro. All the benefits of the new MacBook, plus FireWire, an IR sensor, the backlit keyboard — all the creature comforts. And aluminum too. And the easy-to-clean glass screen… It's just a great laptop, plain and simple.

[Spheric Harlot]

It's also €250 more expensive, if the Firewire/backlight/SD slot/IR sensor are less relevant than your pocketbook.

[Eug]

Your argument is that it may not be worth it, given the significantly higher cost. Sounds familiar.

P.S. My inexpensive refurb white MacBook argument is moot now however, since they've all been snapped up in the last day.

[P]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

And the easy-to-clean glass screen…

You know it's not really glass, right? It's some sort of polycarbonate, I think - same thing the cover iPods in now. The point is more that it's a hard waterproof surface, which makes it easier to clean.

Anyway, for the main argument here: if you can settle for the plain Macbook, buy now. If you want some of the features from the MBP, wait for January but be prepared that you have to spring for discrete graphics if you want decent graphics performance. Apple's current push to sell more MBPs is as good a tell as any that there's an update coming.

[Spheric Harlot]

The MacBook Pros screens are covered with glass.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It's also €250 more expensive, if the Firewire/backlight/SD slot/IR sensor are less relevant than your pocketbook.

In the States, it's only $200 more, which is significantly less than €250. Worth it if you ask me (a FireWire 800 card alone is $75, if you could even get one for the MacBook, which you can't).

[Spheric Harlot]

And if you don't need it, a Firewire card is $75 outthe window.

[CharlesS]

But if you think you don't need it and then it turns out you do, then the whole MacBook is $1000 out the window.

[Wayland]

I just looked at some of the new imac benchmarks on macworld. The core i5 processor is way faster than the current core 2 duo's. Even taking out video, many operations are twice as fast.

Somehow I doubt apple will have a discrete video option for the next gen 13" macbook pro (like the current series).

If the black friday prices are $100, below current, I'll probably bite on one.

[Spheric Harlot]

The i5 iMacs are quad-core. The next-gen i5 MacBooks (should they happen) will probably be dual-core.

[P]

I have a feeling that I will be writing this many MANY times over the next year or two, but here goes:

Intel has decided to modify it's current, somewhat convoluted naming convention to one that is simply confusing. This is how it works out. For the desktop first:

Core i7 900 series: 4 cores, hyperthreading on, turbo on, 3 memory channels. Codenamed Bloomfield. A Xeon version of this (slightly different) is in the Mac Pro
Core i7 800 series: 4 cores, hyperthreaidng on, turbo on, 2 memory channels. Codenamed Lynnfield. The iMac uses this if you upgrade to the Core i7 model.
Core i5 700 series: 4 cores, hyperthreading OFF, turbo on, 2 memory channels. Codenamed Lynnfield-0HT - a Lynnfield with Hyperthreading disabled. The iMac uses this if you use the Core i5 model

Core i5 600 series: 2 cores, hyperthreading back on, turbo on, 2 memory channels, integrated Intel graphics. Codenamed Clarkdale - yes it's a different chip than the other i5. Future low-end iMacs might use this.
Core i3 500 series: 2 cores, hyperthreading on, turbo OFF, 2 memory channels, integrated Intel graphics, cache still at 4 MB. Codenamed Clarkdale, but the turbo modes are set to zero. Possibly used in future Mac minis.
Pentium G-series: 2 cores, hyperthreaidng OFF, turbo OFF, 2 memory channels, integrated Intel graphics, cache down to 3 MB. Still a Clarkdale, but hypertheading is off again and some fo the cache is gone.

Good so far? Fine - the mobiles are worse:

Core i7 800 and 900 series: 4 cores, hyperthreading on, turbo on, 2 memory channels, full 8 MB cache. Codenamed Clarksfield, essentially a mobile Lynnfield. The 900 series has a higher TDP, replacement for the old extreme models.
Core i7 700 series: 4 cores, hyperthreaidng on, turbo on, 2 memory channels, only 6 MB cache. Clarksfield with some cache disabled.
Core i7 600 series: 2 cores, hyperthreading on, turbo on, 2 memory channels, Integrated Intel graphics, full 4 MB cache, codenamed Arrandale. Note that this is a completely different chip from the other Core i7 - it's basically a mobile Clarkdale.

Core i5 400 and 500 series: 2 cores, hyperthreading on, turbo on, 2 memory channels, integrated Intel graphics, only 3MB cache. Arrandale with some chache disabled. The 400 series has wimpier turbo, it seems.
Core i3 300 series: 2 cores, turbo OFF, 2 memory channels, integrated Intel graphics, only 3 MB of cache. There actually some conflicting info on whether Hyperthreading will remain in the Core i3 mobile.

The logic for the desktop is that the i7 models have 8 logical cores, the i5 have 4 logical cores, and the i3 still have 4 logical cores except the turbo is missing. The logic for the mobiles escapes me for the moment.

[Spheric Harlot]

Thanks for that ... err ... I think.

[rony1434]

Hi all.
Hey man thanks for sharing such a nice post.
Its really very useful.

goodbye spammer. -CW

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Wayland 

Somehow I doubt apple will have a discrete video option for the next gen 13" macbook pro (like the current series).

I too don't expect that to happen. Even back in the day when the 12" PB came with dedicated graphics it was always closer to the iBook level than to the level of the 15" PB. It was always at least one generation behind.

In terms of graphics it's not looking too good for the 13" MBP. If it stays Penryn you'll keep the 9400M, which essentially means no big update compared to today's 13" MBP. If OTOH it gets an Arrandale CPU you'll see a nice CPU upgrade but you'll be stuck with its IGP which is definitely a step down from the 9400M.

Prospective MB and 15"/17" MBP buyers are in a much better situation. The MB will stay Penryn/9400M for a while while the 15"/17" MBPs will retain dedicated graphics regardless of their CPU.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The i5 iMacs are quad-core. The next-gen i5 MacBooks (should they happen) will probably be dual-core.

Well if the MB(P) gets i5 (Arrandale) it will definitely be dual-core (physical cores). Although Lynnfield and Arrandale share the "i5" moniker, they are rather different CPUs. And if the MB were to get an i3 Arrandale it won't even have HT so you'd be facing just two logical cores.

[Wayland]

Wow this is more complicated than I thought. I thought in previous generations the imac got the same processors as the laptops. When did this stop?

Anyhow, it seems like a wash. Faster CPU with slower video, or slower cpu with better graphics. I don't really do anything processor or video intensive, or at least with any regularity, so either machine will be fine. The most intensive thing I might do is starcraft 2.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Wayland 

Wow this is more complicated than I thought. I thought in previous generations the imac got the same processors as the laptops. When did this stop?

About four weeks ago.

[P]

And the iMac had different processors than the laptops between mid 2004-early 2006. My personal theory was that the rush job Apple must have done to get the Core Duo CPUs into iMacs and MBP 6 months before the plan meant that they didn't have time to design a separate iMac motherboard, but then they kept the laptop CPUs into the new aluminum and glass iMacs.

[Snooze]

Originally Posted by P 

Core i3 actually has Hyperthreading

umm no.

pretty much every reputable source says core i3 won't have ht.

[P]

Originally Posted by Snooze 

umm no.

pretty much every reputable source says core i3 won't have ht.

In the last week or so, it has become so. It seems that it can be traced back to that German store (HPM Computer) who put the i5 and i3 up for preorder. If you look a bit further back.

[Wayland]

Success! I picked up a 13" macbook pro with vmware budle for $1049 at MacConnection on Friday.

In case anyone cares, I don't think they are as good as Amazon. Price was about the same, but I figured I would try to save the $20. At the same time, I ordered some other stuff from Amazon (new router, laptop sleeve and such). The Amazon stuff shipped on Friday. MacConnect will not ship until Monday.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by P 

And the iMac had different processors than the laptops between mid 2004-early 2006. My personal theory was that the rush job Apple must have done to get the Core Duo CPUs into iMacs and MBP 6 months before the plan meant that they didn't have time to design a separate iMac motherboard, but then they kept the laptop CPUs into the new aluminum and glass iMacs.

I've always assumed that cooling and noise levels were an issue, as well. The new aluminum backs dissipate heat much better than the previous plastic boxes.

[P]

I did say was - I mostly abandonded that theory when the Aluminum models launched. OTOH, the laptop CPUs served them fairly well until the Penryn Quads (Yorkfields and whatever the small cache version of them were called) became cheap enough that they ended up in every PC desktop, so maybe they really only started working on a better cooling solution around a year ago.

[Simon]

The mobile CPUs made the iMac expensive to manufacture and gave it low-end performance compared to its high-end price point. Either heat or other technical difficulties must have forced Apple to go that route. No way they would have chosen Penryn XE over inexpensive Yorkfields at a third of the cost without a compelling reason.

Considering the obsession with unnecessarily thin cases I always had my money on the thermal design. Now that they managed to get a 65 W CPU in there I suppose a thorough thermal redesign (Al rear shell, etc.) was all it took in the end.

Shame though it took them this long. Cheap lower-power desktop quad-cores would have been available already a generation ago. Considering Apple's relationship with Intel definitely no problem there. It appears that until the economic crisis hit Apple, they simply didn't see the need to design a more competitive desktop.

[mduell]

Care of everyone's favorite charting guy:





Many more views/details at his site.

[Eug]

^^^ The desktop Core i7-860 is supposed to be $2xx. It's the 870 that is $5xx.

[P]

I think the -$5xx is supposed to mean "up to". It's not perfectly accurate anyway - the Core i5 750 is shown as having VT-d, which it doesn't have. Also note that Core i3 is completely missing from the mobile chart, and it's a mess anyway. If Intel really wanted to do this Core i3/i5/i7 thing, they should at least have killed the Pentium and Celeron brands.

Has anyone seen any early GPU benches of Arrandale? Those will be very interesting.

[Simon]

Actually, they will be everything but interesting. As I already mentioned, Arrandale's IGP has shown about 50% the performance of 9400M. IOW in 2010 it will deliver about half of last year's integrated graphics performance. The only advantage I see from this is that it might force Apple to include a dedicated GPU on the 13" MBP.