[Colonel Panic]

I noted on the MacBook page ( Apple - MacBook - Features , click on "learn more" under the processor section ) that apple is comparing the performance of the new penryn macbooks to a baseline machine identified as a "MacBook with 2.0Ghz Core Duo". I'm am assuming they mean Core *2* Duo (the previously shipping SR Merom MacBooks, and not old Yonah MacBooks? If its the latter, the gains are a lot less impressive.

[JoshuaZ]

Same with the Macbook Pro page. They compare a 2.16 mhz Macbook Pro Core Duo to a a new 2.5 ghz Macbook Pro. 74% faster in Final Cut Pro? Really? Really?

[gperks]

I'm pretty sure they are comparing to Yonah. They also have a comparison to a 1.67GHz G4. Why not compare to a G3 instead? ;-)

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by gperks 

I'm pretty sure they are comparing to Yonah. They also have a comparison to a 1.67GHz G4. Why not compare to a G3 instead? ;-)

I really liked that one too. Compare things to a 4 year old computer. What a load of PR crap.

I'm just going to wait until someone does a real world benchmark test of these new computers. I'd love to see how my last model 2.4 MBP stacks up to the 2.5 model.

[ort888]

So what exactly is the difference between this Macbook and the last one.

A tiny speed bump, more ram and more storage?

Is that it?

Seeing as how I was planning on maxing out the ram and putting in a bigger hard drive... is it safe to say that I would better off getting an older model if I can save a bit?

[MacinTommy]

You have to add the Apple remote as an option now? That is pretty dumb.

[Simon]

I think this update was fairly lame. Using a 3MB L2 cache Penryn on the MBP? Bad idea. Using the same Penryn on the low-end MBP as on the MB? Bad idea. Keeping the same price points although they're now using cheaper CPUs? And even worse idea.

low-end 15" $1999: T7500 $316 (at launch) -> T8300 $241
high-end 15" $2499: T7700 $530 (at launch) -> T9300 $316

Since there's also a T9500 at 2.6 GHz for $530 that would have been the apprpriate CPU for the 17" and high-end 15". Instead Apple chose to sell us that CPU as a $250 BTO option.

If Apple wants to close the gap between the MB and the MBP, a MB with dedicated GPU/VRAM is the way to go, not by castrating the low-end MBP. With this "update" of the 15" MBP $500 gets you more CPU clock and twice the cache, more disk, and more VRAM. I certainly won't be recommending the low-end 15" MBP to anyone.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ort888 

So what exactly is the difference between this Macbook and the last one.

A tiny speed bump, more ram and more storage?

Yep. Processor efficiency gains make the speed bump a little more significant than it appears at first, but otherwise a very small drop-in upgrade. Which explains how they got both of them out the door at the same time.

[Kenneth]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ 

I really liked that one too. Compare things to a 4 year old computer. What a load of PR crap.

I'm just going to wait until someone does a real world benchmark test of these new computers. I'd love to see how my last model 2.4 MBP stacks up to the 2.5 model.

Telling Mac users to upgrade? I'm sure there are still a lot of PowerBook G4 users out there.

[Cadaver]

Penryn 2.4GHz GeekBench score = 3038
Merom 2.2GHz (Santa Rosa 800MHz FSB) GeekBench score = 2880

5% faster for 200MHz more per core. But Penryns have SSE4, which significantly improve video encoding speed if you do that sort of thing.

The new 45nm chip should run cooler than the 65nm Meroms, too.

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by Kenneth 

Telling Mac users to upgrade? I'm sure there are still a lot of PowerBook G4 users out there.

Ok, maybe I was a little hasty in my bashing. But would it kill them to compare the last model to the newer model?

(My parents still use an 800 mhz G4)

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Cadaver 

The new 45nm chip should run cooler than the 65nm Meroms, too.

Not really. According to Intel's specs it has the exact same thermal envelope as the Meroms it's replacing.

[MrForgetable]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ 

Ok, maybe I was a little hasty in my bashing. But would it kill them to compare the last model to the newer model?

(My parents still use an 800 mhz G4)

They probably did it because it was the last of the G4s and some people are still chugging along on PPC like your parents and my sister until this past January.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Not really. According to Intel's specs it has the exact same thermal envelope as the Meroms it's replacing.

Right, but how often are people running their laptops full tilt? The new high-k Hafnium dielectric process reduces leakage current and thus idle power consumption, which should help the laptops run cooler most of the time.

[Simon]

This is basically an idle test. On the T9x00 models the savings due to Penryn's HfSiON dielectric are almost entirely gobbled up by the larger L2 cache. The <5% power reduction will translate to a barely measurable change of case temperature. Of course Apple could have changed the thermal design (higher RPM fans) too, but the CPU alone will not make the MBP magically run cooler that's for sure. Beside that we also have the higher power draw of the increased VRAM.

[funkboy]

I am glad they put up the G4 comparison; some of us still use G4s and are dying to upgrade.

Actually.. I don't see the G4 comparison. Where is it?

[Kenneth]

Originally Posted by funkboy 

I am glad they put up the G4 comparison; some of us still use G4s and are dying to upgrade.

Actually.. I don't see the G4 comparison. Where is it?

Apple - MacBook Pro - Performance

"Compared to 17” PowerBook with 1.67GHz PowerPC G4"

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by funkboy 

I am glad they put up the G4 comparison; some of us still use G4s and are dying to upgrade.

Actually.. I don't see the G4 comparison. Where is it?

I would kind of assume a MacNN regular like yourself would have picked up on the fact that the new Intel Macs are quite a bit faster than your G4...

[P]

I agree that dropping the base MBP to a smaller cache was a bad move, but in general it seems they have given more priority to GPU and HD in the budget. Not altogether a bad thing.

[JoshuaZ]

According to Gizmodo.com the old 2.4s are faster than the current 2.4s.

Apple: MacBook Pro First Benchmarks Are a Bit of a Disappointment

[funkboy]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ 

I would kind of assume a MacNN regular like yourself would have picked up on the fact that the new Intel Macs are quite a bit faster than your G4...

You would assume correct... I imagine some Powerbook owners don't quite realize the jump in speed. And to see what they really estimate the improvement is really encourages me to want one... I know the upgrade is nice, but quantifying the niceness makes me want to lay down the money.
I say it's good they keep that in their marketing material.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by Kenneth 

Telling Mac users to upgrade? I'm sure there are still a lot of PowerBook G4 users out there.

I just purchased a MB C2D 2.2 (Merom?) from the refurb store to replace my aging PB. I am hoping I feel a speed boost and cooler temps.

I hope it was a good purchase (delivers tomorrow).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro 

I just purchased a MB C2D 2.2 (Merom?)

Yep. The 2.2 GHz MB was the previous generaion high-end model. It's a Merom C2D.

I am hoping I feel a speed boost and cooler temps.

You will certainly get a big speed boost with UB apps. And chances are it will feel a bit cooler than your PB too. MBs can get quite warm, but the plastic case helps compared to aluminum.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

I agree that dropping the base MBP to a smaller cache was a bad move, but in general it seems they have given more priority to GPU and HD in the budget. Not altogether a bad thing.

I agree with your point about the HDD, but I don't see the GPU argument. They didn't use as a better GPU. All they did was increase the VRAM. And unfortunately for almost all users that won't lead to noticeable performance difference (the minor exception being 3D games with tons of textures loaded into VRAM).

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Yep. The 2.2 GHz MB was the previous generaion high-end model. It's a Merom C2D.

Low end; but it's a steal at $1449!

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Low end; but it's a steal at $1449!

Nope, high end. We're talking MBs here. You on the other hand are confusing MBP and MB.

The refurb 2.2 GHz MB with 1GB/120GB/SD/white is going for $999.

[CheesePuff]

I just bought a brand new black 2.2 GHz with 4 GB RAM shipped for $1260 with a free Targus bag from NewEgg, no longer on there though.