Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > Intel Core i5/i7 MacBook Pro

Intel Core i5/i7 MacBook Pro (Page 2)
Thread Tools
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2010, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Nergol View Post
Frankly, I don't even know if the non-Pro MacBook has much of a future. I think they only kept it for the education market, and if education decides to go with iPads equipped with ebook textbooks, even that could be doomed.
I see more white MacBooks than any version of the MBP. It's still not a bad machine at all. I'm sure it'll be updated this summer.
     
richwig83
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2010, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
That's because in the meantime your currency has gone to hell.
Ahhh yeah... that will be the one!
MacBook Pro 2.2 i7 | 4GB | 128GB SSD ~ 500GB+2TB Externals ~ iPhone 4 32GB
Canon 5DII | EF 24-105mm IS USM | EF 100-400mm L IS USM | 50mm 1.8mkII
iMac | Mac Mini | 42" Panasonic LED HDTV | PS3
     
polendo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Monterrey, Mexico
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2010, 07:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by richwig83 View Post
Ahhh yeah... that will be the one!
Interesting... here in Mexico the prices came down considerebly. Put it this way.. the actual high end 15" is comparable to the middle one of last generation.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2010, 07:41 PM
 
Just as an update to what I posted earlier, I went to the Apple Store and it turned out that it cost me $310 (a flat fee) to have my old MBP repaired, which isn't too bad I guess. Anyway, I probably won't be getting one of the new machines assuming the repair goes as planned. They didn't have the new ones in the store yet by the way.
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2010, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Have you used the iPad? It's a toy. That keyboard is useless for real work--it works like the iPhone's, with punctuation and things like that tucked into a subkeyboard. The plain jane Macbook is Mac's most successful computer. I see those little suckers everywhere. In my grad class, five of the eleven people have white Macbooks and they weren't institutional purchases.
As I am typing this on my iPad, I have to defend her
I don't feel as it is a toy. I think thar you can get some serious work done on it. The only area I think it does not really cover well/can do is video editing. I think it is a very good simple computer.
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
The Godfather
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2010, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by icruise View Post
Just as an update to what I posted earlier, I went to the Apple Store and it turned out that it cost me $310 (a flat fee) to have my old MBP repaired, which isn't too bad I guess. Anyway, I probably won't be getting one of the new machines assuming the repair goes as planned. They didn't have the new ones in the store yet by the way.
You are a hero to tree huggers all around
I am going to clean the insides of my Macbook from all the cat hair accumulated through 4 years. It will feel like new again. If it didn't fry durings its Applecare period, it won't for another 10 years.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2010, 09:29 PM
 
My office bought three today. Personally I've got my eye on the refurb store for a 13", although buying a 16 month old chip is a bit anti-climatic.

Originally Posted by Simon View Post
In terms of CPU architecture, there is no difference between the Core i7 Arrandale and the Core i5-500 series Arrandale apart from the 1 MB of L2 cache. So the entire difference boils down to that and the difference in clock.

The Core i5-400 series OTOH has a reduced turbo. Apple has chosen not to use this CPU.

Core i7 Arrandale is essentially a mobile version of Clarkdale.
Core i7 Arrandale is... Arrandale. Very different from the Core i7 Clarkdale which have 2 more cores and no integrated graphics.

Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Wowzers.
x264 loves Nehalem.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2010, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by iomatic View Post
I was wondering if I should upgrade my current one; anyone have any insight? (Sometimes bogs down with the rare iTunes, Suitcase, Photoshop-InDesign-Illustrator trifecta (and Lightroom), Safari, iChat and Mail, etc. going strong; also driving the external 23", FW + USB drives, etc., BT, Ethernet & Airport). Will I benefit more from a CS4 upgrade?
IMO a full 8 GB RAM (you did not define your current setup) and the new graphics will make a significant performance improvement in the workflow that you describe. Adobe apps including CS3 for years have benefited from 16 GB RAM and above under OS X; probably more with just-announced CS5. Personally I skipped CS4 as mostly bloatware, but the new context-sensitive edits in CS5 look pretty cool. Also do not ignore the benefits of optimizing the mass storage setup: OS and apps on the internal drive (get the 7200 rpm or an SSD), scratch on a fast FW800 external or on an SSD in the Superdrive slot.

-Allen
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2010, 10:50 PM
 
This is the first time I've taken the 13" MacBook (Pro) seriously - delivering the goods GPU wise makes me think about it for light travel needs. And the real MBPs are quite impressive this cycle.

Now if only the Mac Pros would get some of the same love Apple's showing the portable lines. . .

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
NateEssex
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 12:52 AM
 
So will the 13" with a M320 be able to put up good frame rates? Has anyone bought one yet that could share their 1st hand experience?
MBP 15" 2.33 ghz 256Video Card
40 Gig iPod, Airport Extreme
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:02 AM
 
Good framerates in older games.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
WizOSX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 02:01 AM
 
….....................
Originally Posted by simon
In terms of CPU architecture, there is no difference between the Core i7 Arrandale and the Core i5-500 series Arrandale apart from the 1 MB of L2 cache. So the entire difference boils down to that and the difference in clock.
So the only performance difference between the two lower 15" models is clockspeed. So we should see at most a 5% difference in performance.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 03:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
I would have liked to see the 13" MBP updated to Core i5, but I'm glad Apple has chosen to skip Core i3.
I agree.
If Apple had chosen to use a Core i5 in the 15", it would have been a no-brainer to go with the 13".
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 03:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
BTW, it appears that the new MBPs are not using nVidia Optimus, but their own solution that does the same thing: live-switching between the Intel IGP and nVidia graphics. Nice.
It's actually even better. Apple's method shuts off the IGP when the dedicated graphics is being used. Optimus doesn't and has both continue to run with only the dedicated writing to the buffer. Lots of extra bus traffic and lots of circuitry using power for no reason. Apple's solution fixes that. Say hello to 10 hours of battery life.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 03:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
This is the first time I've taken the 13" MacBook (Pro) seriously - delivering the goods GPU wise makes me think about it for light travel needs. And the real MBPs are quite impressive this cycle.
I agree. I think the 13" MBP was a decent upgrade. Sure it would have been nice to see i5 there, but the current solution is definitely better than i3 plus Arrandale IGP.

And the i7 on the 15" and 17" is simply going to rock. Together with the increased battery life, added options, and lower prices this was a very nice update.

Now if only they would have gotten rid of that optical drive and added USB3.

Now if only the Mac Pros would get some of the same love Apple's showing the portable lines. . .
I hear you loud and clear my friend.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 03:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Core i7 Arrandale is... Arrandale. Very different from the Core i7 Clarkdale which have 2 more cores and no integrated graphics.
You know Duell, nitpicking and trying to be the wise guy works better when you actually have a clue.

Clarkdale is dual-core. It's a dual-core Westmere with integrated graphics. IOW it's like Core i5/i7 Arrandale for the desktop. My guess is you were thinking about quad-core Clarksfield which is an entirely different CPU (and more closely related to Lynnfield on the desktop). Note that I never mentioned that CPU here.

Core i7-600 series Arrandale is a mobile version of Core i5-600 series Clarkdale. End of story.
( Last edited by Simon; Apr 14, 2010 at 03:30 AM. )
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 03:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by WizOSX View Post
So the only performance difference between the two lower 15" models is clockspeed. So we should see at most a 5% difference in performance.
It's a 5% difference in clock speed plain and simple. So not something most people will notice in everyday tasks. It's $200 extra but you're also getting a larger disk.

The 1k price difference for the CPUs is a mere $32 so Apple adds in quite a markup. I'd say if you're going to get that 500 GB HDD you might as well go for the 2.53 GHz model ($100 extra). If not the 2.4 GHz model is better value.
     
WizOSX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 04:42 AM
 
….....................
Originally Posted by simon
I'd say if you're going to get that 500 GB HDD you might as well go for the 2.53 GHz model ($100 extra). If not the 2.4 GHz model is better value..
Another $150 above the base 2.4 is right at the limit of what my employer will pay for. So the Hi-res Antiglare screen seemed to me a better way to use the $150 than the middle model with regular res. The HDD can be replaced if necessary, but not the screen.

The machine may be here by Friday or Saturday. Since I have to have the machine in hand by about April 25 to get it covered, Apple got the new machines out in the nick of time for me anyway.
     
The Placid Casual
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 05:17 AM
 
I have, and am very satisfied with, a late 2008 13" 2.4ghz Aluminium Macbook.

In perspective of that, this update is kind of weird.

My machine has a 2.4ghz C2D, 4 gig RAM (upgraded from the standard 2gig), 500Gig HDD (updated from the standard 250Gig for €50) and a 9400M.

I usually upgrade every 2-2.5 years as this is a work machine, so in 6 months time or so I'd be looking to buy a new machine...

As it stands, assuming that the specs are not revised within 6 months or so, if I bought a 13" MBP, I'd be looking at next to no upgrade at all to my 18 month old machine! A .2ghz clock speed jump, same RAM, HDD, and arguably an inferior, or at least similar graphics card.

Very odd.

Also, if I look at the 15" MBP, I'd just never pay Apple's price these days when I could buy a vastly better specced Sony VAIO F series for €900 compared to Apple's €1749 minimum!

In comparison to both the 13" and the 15" MBP, my wife just bought an ASUS 15"; 2.2ghz c2d, 320M GT, 4Gig RAM, 320gig HDD, LED screen and all mod cons... for €499.

I honestly think that the prices and specs needs a rethink as they just seem uninspiring and not tempting at all these days. Yes OS X commands a premium, but €800+?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 09:43 AM
 
I had planned to upgrade after this announcement. I'm most interested in the 13" form factor, so I'm really torn. On the other hand, I will be upgrading from a 1.67 GHz G4 PowerBook, so any of the new models will be a significant boost for me. I'm going to wait for more benchmarks to see how the 13" and the i5 and i7 15" models compare.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Placid Casual View Post
I have, and am very satisfied with, a late 2008 13" 2.4ghz Aluminium Macbook.

In perspective of that, this update is kind of weird.

My machine has a 2.4ghz C2D, 4 gig RAM (upgraded from the standard 2gig), 500Gig HDD (updated from the standard 250Gig for €50) and a 9400M.

I usually upgrade every 2-2.5 years as this is a work machine, so in 6 months time or so I'd be looking to buy a new machine...

As it stands, assuming that the specs are not revised within 6 months or so, if I bought a 13" MBP, I'd be looking at next to no upgrade at all to my 18 month old machine! A .2ghz clock speed jump, same RAM, HDD, and arguably an inferior, or at least similar graphics card.

Very odd.

Also, if I look at the 15" MBP, I'd just never pay Apple's price these days when I could buy a vastly better specced Sony VAIO F series for €900 compared to Apple's €1749 minimum!

In comparison to both the 13" and the 15" MBP, my wife just bought an ASUS 15"; 2.2ghz c2d, 320M GT, 4Gig RAM, 320gig HDD, LED screen and all mod cons... for €499.

I honestly think that the prices and specs needs a rethink as they just seem uninspiring and not tempting at all these days. Yes OS X commands a premium, but €800+?
Oh no, not this apples to apples convo again, no pun intended. I think this conversation always goes the same way. We all want to see apple lower their prices, but I think that it boils down to a couple things for the price that apple must make sure it covers.
I think that Apple has clearly outlined the market that it is and wants, the higher priced computer/mobile market. Occasionally they lower prices or try to stay in line with possible competition. The iPhone is generally in price line with other phones that can do most of what it does. In the computer space it is different though. OSX is a big difference, but there are many other factors to account for the price. Quality, build, service, support, physical location, training, and brand name. I am probably missing some. I guess the premise is the same, will you pay more for a better car, or any product that is better than another? I think that even in a bad economy the answer is yes. Though I truly do understand your point that it is not that they cost more, but by how much they cost more. Over the years that I have owned Apples I have dealt with the many other aspects that make them cost more. Sometimes they break, I have had people at the store, go in the back, and bring me a new one.
What do you use your work computer for? I would love to use my mac for work stuff. I do agree with a couple of points, the 13inch upgrade was too minor for the price but I think that it will see an upgrade sooner than later, but that is what we said about the pro line for a while now right?
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by WizOSX View Post
Another $150 above the base 2.4 is right at the limit of what my employer will pay for. So the Hi-res Antiglare screen seemed to me a better way to use the $150 than the middle model with regular res. The HDD can be replaced if necessary, but not the screen.
Good choice. Hi-res is cool.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
This is the first time I've taken the 13" MacBook (Pro) seriously - delivering the goods GPU wise makes me think about it for light travel needs. And the real MBPs are quite impressive this cycle.
This is the least seriously I've ever taken the 13" MBP. It's more like the bad old days when the 12" PB was a metal coated iBook.

Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Clarkdale is dual-core. It's a dual-core Westmere with integrated graphics. IOW it's like Core i5/i7 Arrandale for the desktop. My guess is you were thinking about quad-core Clarksfield which is an entirely different CPU (and more closely related to Lynnfield on the desktop). Note that I never mentioned that CPU here.

Core i7-600 series Arrandale is a mobile version of Core i5-600 series Clarkdale. End of story.
F%^&*ing naming schemes. Even the codenames are all so close.
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:20 PM
 
I must cosign that, the names are really confusing. The fact that the i7 in the MacBook Pro and the iMac both have i7, but are completely different pretty much confuse me.
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
The Placid Casual
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:22 PM
 
Thanks for the reply solofx, you make some compelling points. Just guess I am getting old and grumpy these days, but outside the US, things are not as clear cut. For example:

Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
I think that Apple has clearly outlined the market that it is and wants, the higher priced computer/mobile market. Occasionally they lower prices or try to stay in line with possible competition.
They may have outlined the market they want to go for, and when there was a G3/G4/G5 chip against an Intel, they could artificially demand a premium price. Now we use a derivative motherboard and/or CPU, as well as GPU, in honesty we are sharing the same ground as the other makers, as much as Apple hate to admit it.

For example, you have a Dell, a Lenovo, a VAIO and an Apple. They all share the very same components. One may have a nice metal case, another have a special trick feature, but the fact is, they share the same platform, so can a €1000 price difference between say a VAIO and Apple now be justified.

Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
The iPhone is generally in price line with other phones that can do most of what it does. In the computer space it is different though. OSX is a big difference, but there are many other factors to account for the price. Quality, build, service, support, physical location, training, and brand name. I am probably missing some. I guess the premise is the same, will you pay more for a better car, or any product that is better than another? I think that even in a bad economy the answer is yes.
I totally agree, the iPhone is a great product and well priced. I am on my 3rd...

As for the other factors you mention such as service, support, stores etc, outside the US it means little. In France, we have one Applestore. One. If we have a problem we have to send the machine back the same was as Dell, and Sony.

I come back to my VAIO comparison. For the F series VAIO, specced to exactly the same, if not a bit better than a 15" MBP, the difference in price is €1000. Service level is the same, quality is similar (yes Apple does shade it), so is OS X worth a €1000 premium?

I drive a BMW as I love the quality, reliability, dealerships etc, and yes I pay a premium, but the analogy does not apply. If Apple is Mercedes or BMW, but am Audi or Lexus offered the same, for half the price, I'd change...

Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
Though I truly do understand your point that it is not that they cost more, but by how much they cost more. Over the years that I have owned Apples I have dealt with the many other aspects that make them cost more. Sometimes they break, I have had people at the store, go in the back, and bring me a new one.
Again, no store. I had to wait 3 weeks for my current machine to be delivered. My pre-order of Snow Leopard was 2 weeks late. There were no stores to go to to pick up a copy...

Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
What do you use your work computer for? I would love to use my mac for work stuff. I do agree with a couple of points, the 13inch upgrade was too minor for the price but I think that it will see an upgrade sooner than later, but that is what we said about the pro line for a while now right?
I use it for Software QA. I run VMWare and bootcamp to maintain as many environments as I can, and find that the 13" offered a real sweet spot for portability, utility and price... when I bought it.

Peace out,

TPC
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Placid Casual View Post
... and arguably an inferior, or at least similar graphics card.
What are you talking about? The new IGP is much better.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:28 PM
 
If you don't realize that C2D + 320M is a superior overall package compared to Core i3 + IGP you actually should go out and buy a Dell.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:31 PM
 
n/m
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:39 PM
 
Hi The Placid Casual,
You make a ton of good points. A lot of what you are saying makes a ton of sense as we seem to have many more options here in the states. I have a Best Buy 5 minutes from me and they generally have everything Apple stores have had on launch day. There service is not nearly as good, but its good that its so close. The Apple store is about 15 minutes away. Generally it is a mad house so if I need to pick up a quick item, I go to Best Buy though I prefer the Apple store.
Hardware vs hardware, I think that you can surely compare Apple to anyone that makes a similar product. I think that it is all of the items outside of the hardware that make the difference. In our economy here in the states, things are not so well, but Apple seems to still thrive. I see this mostly as people will pay for either quality or perceived quality, depending on how you look at it. Outside of hardware and trying not to account for OSX, I cannot really find anyone that offers anything close to what Apple does. I mean the whole product experience. Yes, I very much agree that Sony is close in some aspects. They were the only competition when I was looking at a computer that ended up being my first Mac. I work at home, so my Macs are all next to me as I work on a PC
p.s. I will trade you my Honda for your BMW.

pkmckenna, are you saying that the integrated graphics on the new MBP's is better than the 330 or 320?
I am still trying to figure out how big of a difference the graphics will be from my current 9600/9400 combo.
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:42 PM
 
320 is not quite as good as the 330.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:45 PM
 
330+IGP trumps 9600+9400.

320M trumps 9400M.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
pkmckenna, are you saying that the integrated graphics on the new MBP's is better than the 330 or 320?
I am still trying to figure out how big of a difference the graphics will be from my current 9600/9400 combo.
What I said was: the new MB with 320m is better than the old MB with 9400m.

Your current system is probably superior to the new MB. I very much doubt the 320m could beat the 9600.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:52 PM
 
On a different tack, the i7 systems really seems to be worth the money. If I was interested in the 15" I would certainly spend the money. The hyper-threading and turbo boost look like genuinely desirable tech.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
On a different tack, the i7 systems really seems to be worth the money. If I was interested in the 15" I would certainly spend the money. The hyper-threading and turbo boost look like genuinely desirable tech.
Indeed. I'd like to see some benchmarks with Photoshop CS5 and these machines.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
I must cosign that, the names are really confusing. The fact that the i7 in the MacBook Pro and the iMac both have i7, but are completely different pretty much confuse me.
Thirded. There is a special circle in hell reserved for the Intel marketer that implement the names the way they did. The codenames are better, though: -dale means dualcore (Wolfdale, Arrandale, Clarkdale), -field means quad (Kentsfield, Clarksfield, Bloomfield, Lynnfield, Yorkfield). The suffix ton or town seems to be some sort of top-of-the-line marker (Gulftown, Beckton, Gainestown, Clovertown, Harpertown, Tigerton, Dunnington). There are names that don't fit, but the logic seems to be improving. I guess they didn't let the marketing department touch those. Will be interesting if they follow this trend with Sandy Bridge - Intel started talking it up earlier today, saying that production will start this year, which indicates a launch of the first chips some time Q2 (or maybe Q1) 2011.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I very much doubt the 320m could beat the 9600.
Don't be too sure. The 320m has 48 shader pipelines, and the 9600m only has 32. The 320m is also of a newer design. OTOH, the 9600m has some real dedicated memory bandwidth (25.6 GBps) while the 320m has to share a smaller amount (17 GBps, if my math checks out) with the CPU. Games that are limited by texture bandwidth will work better on the 9600m, while games with advanced shaders will work better on the 320m. Put another way: The newer the game, the better the 320m will do.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
What I said was: the new MB with 320m is better than the old MB with 9400m.

Your current system is probably superior to the new MB. I very much doubt the 320m could beat the 9600.
Gotcha. I truly don't even need a MacBook Pro. I have my iMac for all of the heavy lifting of games and such. I just want the 17 i7 MacBook Pro because of the real estate. I also want as much power as possible or that I can afford as to avoid issues.
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
On a different tack, the i7 systems really seems to be worth the money. If I was interested in the 15" I would certainly spend the money. The hyper-threading and turbo boost look like genuinely desirable tech.
I agree here. When I went from i5 to i7, it was only 150 or 180 or so. I think that "future proofing was worth it.
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Thirded. There is a special circle in hell reserved for the Intel marketer that implement the names the way they did. The codenames are better, though: -dale means dualcore (Wolfdale, Arrandale, Clarkdale), -field means quad (Kentsfield, Clarksfield, Bloomfield, Lynnfield, Yorkfield). The suffix ton or town seems to be some sort of top-of-the-line marker (Gulftown, Beckton, Gainestown, Clovertown, Harpertown, Tigerton, Dunnington). There are names that don't fit, but the logic seems to be improving. I guess they didn't let the marketing department touch those. Will be interesting if they follow this trend with Sandy Bridge - Intel started talking it up earlier today, saying that production will start this year, which indicates a launch of the first chips some time Q2 (or maybe Q1) 2011.
What you said does clear things up for me a little bit.
That ring of hell is perfect for not only the code names, but also naming 2 really different processors the same "i7" name. As if my life was not confusing enough
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
JoshuaZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 02:56 PM
 
Are there any "real world" reviews of the new MBP's 33m in action?

(Not just generic graphic card review sites)
     
WizOSX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 03:12 PM
 
….....................
Originally Posted by pkmckenna
On a different tack, the i7 systems really seems to be worth the money. If I was interested in the 15" I would certainly spend the money. The hyper-threading and turbo boost look like genuinely desirable tech..
??? The i5 15" models both have hyperthreading and turbo boost.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 04:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Thirded. There is a special circle in hell reserved for the Intel marketer that implement the names the way they did. The codenames are better, though: -dale means dualcore (Wolfdale, Arrandale, Clarkdale), -field means quad (Kentsfield, Clarksfield, Bloomfield, Lynnfield, Yorkfield). The suffix ton or town seems to be some sort of top-of-the-line marker (Gulftown, Beckton, Gainestown, Clovertown, Harpertown, Tigerton, Dunnington). There are names that don't fit, but the logic seems to be improving. I guess they didn't let the marketing department touch those. Will be interesting if they follow this trend with Sandy Bridge - Intel started talking it up earlier today, saying that production will start this year, which indicates a launch of the first chips some time Q2 (or maybe Q1) 2011.
Wow, that was illuminating. Thanks a lot for the explanation
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 04:26 PM
 
Ok, I'm ordering a maxed out 13" ProBook. I've decided that size matters more than the extra cpu horse power. I've treated myself to 8 GB of RAM, though. Can't wait to get the new machine
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 04:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
On a different tack, the i7 systems really seems to be worth the money. If I was interested in the 15" I would certainly spend the money. The hyper-threading and turbo boost look like genuinely desirable tech.
The i5 has both turbo boost and hyper-threading. According to sources I've read, the only difference between the two processors is the clock speed, and the i7 has 4MB cache versus 3MB in the i5.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 05:01 PM
 
     
WizOSX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 06:11 PM
 
….....................
Originally Posted by simon
Good choice. Hi-res is cool..
I hope the benefits are worth the disadvantages of the extra size. As we said, it would have been great if there had been an i5 Hi-res 13". In a long line of Mac portables, starting with a Duo 230, I've only had one larger than 13" (a Ti 550).

A huge benefit of Hi-res is that I can run my external monitors with mirroring on and still have good resolution. One is a 21" 1680x1050, a perfect fit. The other is a 42" 1920x1080 (a fabulous monitor since it has both DVI and HDMI). In terms of available video memory this makes the regular res i7 model and the i5 Hi-res the same.
     
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 08:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
I must cosign that, the names are really confusing. The fact that the i7 in the MacBook Pro and the iMac both have i7, but are completely different pretty much confuse me.
You think that's bad, take a look at the Xeon line. You can have an archaic P4 based Xeon branded Xeon 3.6 GHZ, or a modern Xeon branded Xeon 2.66. If they even refer to the processor speed.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 09:13 PM
 
I just put my MacBook Pro up for sale with the intention of upgrading to the current 15" MacBook Pro. I have the Santa Rosa 15" 2.4 MacBook Pro. Looking over the specs on the current model, I see it only has one FireWire Port. I import video over FireWire while using a scratch disk connected by firewire. The loss of a firewire port is important to me. I'm reconsidering the upgrade. The SD slot is another downgrade as well. Much prefer the way more versatile Expresscard/34 slot. Workarounds?
     
simonjames
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bondi Beach
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 10:17 PM
 
My current laptop is a 17" G4 powerbook and so I am a bit out of touch with current hardware. I was thinking of getting an updated MB Air but as it wasn't updated with the new Pro line and keeping in mind what Apple did (or didn't do) with the 13" MBP I am now thinking of getting a 15" i7 with HD screen.

The question I have is :- is 4Gb enough or do I go 8? I will be running parallels and possibly memory hungry apps like photoshop. My PB has 1Gb and it is painfully slow. When it was released 1Gb was Apple's standard and it isn't sufficient - is a 4Gb MBP also insufficent?
this sig intentionally left blank
     
slugslugslug
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2010, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
. Looking over the specs on the current model, I see it only has one FireWire Port. I import video over FireWire while using a scratch disk connected by firewire.
Does it slow things down way too much to daisy-chain the video camera to the external disk? I was under the impression that pretty much every FireWire HDD enclosure had at least 2 ports.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:55 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,