New Macbookpro to have i7 quads and gt 650m

I'd argue it's the original Xbox that's the anomaly, probably because its install base wasn't that large. Even if Microsoft discontinues the 360 once the 720 comes out, the 360's install base will vastly exceed that of the 720 for a long time. Publishers will be releasing new games for the 360 even after the 720 releases.

 

What a load of rubbish about the 650m not being powerful enough.

Computer Games on Laptop Graphic Cards - Notebookcheck.net Tech

Know look at that and then maybe take some aa or af and 1080p gaming at 30fps+ is easily capable. I just lol at your 50-100% claim better. Put it in simple terms a gt 650m laptop on stress test with i7 quad takes 112w vs the 217w for the gtx 675m. A gt 650m ddr5 is as powerful nearly as my previous desktop hd 5770 card and that played most games at 1080p at 60fps without aa. Using your logic a gtx 560m is just not that powerful lol as a gaming rig.

Nvidia will pay the price for putting rebranded fermi products in the 600m series as people will think why is amd twice as fast in there top end graphics cards and take less watts to do it like the 7970m.

 

Agree with you Malgrave, the 360 is in a totally different situation than the original xbox at the time. The 360 will at least live as long as the ps3.

It would be very very surprising to see the gt 650 on the 13" MBP . No I expect it to be only for the high end 15" one.

 

Hope you meant PS2 considering the PS3 came out after the 360.

 

Yeah sorry meant ps2.
But when the 360 dies the ps3 won't have much time left considering most games nowadays are multi platform.
Yeah of course there will still be a niche of Japanese developers that will continue to make games for ps3 but those games probably won't leave Japan.

 

You are able to post a link to actual recorded specs but didn't take the
time to actual read them?

The 675M is 50-100% more powerful ( anyway you wish to look at it ).

Check performance fps on notebookcheck or go to nvidia and look at
card specifications.

The 650M comes in at least 3-4 different flavors. Only 1 is the 2G ddr5 that
has the potential to get 64G bandwidth w/128bit. The other versions are all
below 48G. By nvidia it has a MAX ( the single highest card ) performance
index of 10k.

The 675M has a 96G bandwidth w/256bit and performance index of 15k.
50% above the best 650M version no?

Then take a look at notebookcheck from a in-game standpoint. You will see
across the board 50-100% greater frame rates in actual game use.

Last point, FOR ME, a card that cannot get 30fps or better at native resolution
( 1920x1080 ) high to ultra details is not good enough performance FOR ME.
If you are happy with something less great for you.

BTW the 560M was a good card almost 2 yrs ago, lol. The 7970M is top dog
now and is another 30-50% stronger than the 675M.

 

Like mitlov already pointed out, 1440 will have no loss of clarity due to 1/4 pixel ratio, so for a 15" screen it should be fine for blur free gaming for most people. If you want to drive another display and 1440 is not enough, thin and light probably is not the category to go for.

 

I actually really, really like the idea of a high-res display that can do a popular lower-resolution with a 1/4 pixel ratio. I wish that instead of 1920x1080, my Vaio F had a 2732x1536 screen, which would allow for extremely crisp text when working with side-by-side Word documents, and also perfectly crisp gaming at 1366x768 (what I do all my gaming at anyway...the 540m can't handle 1080p gaming).

 

I guess we haven't really experienced this, but if the resolution of the display is approaching or is better than your ability to resolve an image as a human at whatever distance you are working with the display, then you open up the possibility of working in various resolutions with clarity, not just perfectly scaling resolutions.

Although the math works out well if you want to do naive scaling from 1440x900 on a 2880x1800 display, I don't think you would introduce any blurry effect from using 1280x800 or 1680x1050, either- assuming the display is high enough in density / far enough away.

hope that makes sense.

 

The GTX 560M was announced exactly one year ago and has been available in notebooks you can buy for around 10 months. If it no longer provides acceptable performance by your standards, does that mean you plan to upgrade every 9-12 months?

I guess I don't get the appeal of serious gaming notebooks. It seems like such a sacrifice in portability vs. other notebooks and such a sacrifice in screen size, performance, and upgradeability vs. a desktop gaming rig.

 

I agree. I like the idea of not needing to push that many pixels and keeping my effects high.

 

I hope they use the Intel Core i7 3612QM. It's a 35 watt chip, while all the other i7's are 45 watt.

 

Yes you are right officially announced 1 year ago, seemed longer to me.

I usually upgrade every other year. I want as much eye candy and performance as I can get (within my financial limits ). Don't really want to restrict resolution or graphics quality just to make it work.

After two years the best card today will be having issues keeping up with newer games.

The 650M, although technically a top tier card by notebookcheck rankings, doesn't meet my performance needs. That doesn't mean it is a poor choice for someone else, just not me.

Some of the comments about how great the 650 is are imo a little exaggerated. If the new mbp really gets retina displays the 650 is going to struggle gaming. It can't handle 1920x1080 now. No matter what though it will still be a nice improvement over the 6750.

BTW the a Sager 9150 15.6 w/7970 is 6.8lbs about 1.2lbs more than a 15 mbp. Not really all that different in size/portability.

Like everyone else though I would like a 3-4lb serious gaming machine. By the time that happens I probably won't be gaming anymore

 

while the 560m was launched last year, the 460m which is exactly what the 560m is with slower clocks was launched in 2010.

The point is that the performance of the 460m while it was good for 2010, in 2011 it was greatly superseded by the new top range (lest I remind you that the 470m and the dreaded 480m where difficult to find in laptops), the 6990m and the 485m/580m/675m, and this year it arrives with another great leap in performance with the 7970m and supposedly with the 680m

if you want we can compare the 2010 mbp 15 with the gt 330m with the 650m, its not going to be pretty, but the performance improvement even from the 6770m that they put in last year model made the 330m look frail as well.

 

Also the macbook screen is 15.4 inches 16:10 aspect ratio witch is approximate the same wide then the 14.5 envy 14.
It will be impressive if they can cool everything well.

 

They exist; it's just a question of living with an 11" screen. The M11x was around for several years (and recently discontinued), but now Clevo (Sager in the US) offers an 11" machine that's under 4 lbs and packs a 650M.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/not...ew-biggest-isnt-always-better-discussion.html

 

Yeah it has a 650M but the new Clevo is still bulky. And an 11" screen is just too small to enjoy anything imho.

 

How about a Vaio S13, 3.5 lbs, 13.3" 900p screen, and a 640M? Not a 650M, sure, but it can still run Skyrim on high and Diablo III on ultra. And it's definitely sleeker than the Clevo:



Sony VAIO S 13 (2012) product preview - Laptop - Trusted Reviews

 

Is that the one that makes all reds orange?

 

Nope, that was a problem specific to the 15" screen used in the Vaio SE and the Envy 15.

 

After visiting a local Sony store and touching those VAIO's....will never consider one. Their build quality is miles behind Apple

 

They're made of lighter, more flexible materials. That's why a MBP 13 weighs 4.5 lbs without a GPU, an an S13 weighs 3.5 lbs with a GPU. I was responding to a poster who wanted a sub-4-lb laptop with a decent GPU, so the Sony seemed like a better fit. No laptop is for everyone, and there are always trade-offs.

 

carbon fiber is lighter, but it's also a somewhat more problematic material than aluminum.

also, the S13 is a 16x9 13.3" diagonal laptop, so it's probably a somewhat smaller laptop than the MBP 13 (16x10 13.3" diagonal). Check the dimensions for volume.

 

The S is aluminum-cased. The aluminum is thinner and not unibody, so it's lighter but less solid and flex-free than the MBP (solidity and lightness can be a zero-sum game sometimes). It's the Z that has carbon fiber.

The MBP 13 is 108.5 cubic inches; the Vaio S13 is 106.5 cubic inches, and the difference is entirely due to thickness (the Vaio has 2% less volume but is 2% thinner).

And it's worth pointing out that the S13 not only offers 320 more columns of pixels, but it also offers 100 more rows of pixels, so the normal 16:9 versus 16:10 arguments about rows of pixels don't apply.

I think they're both really good machines; they just have different strengths.

 

I wasn't talking about pixels, I just meant the shape. 13.3" 16x10 is physically larger than 13.3" 16x9 (because the measurement is taken across the diagonal). This doesn't mean 16x10 is better, it just means that measuring across the diagonal isn't the best way to compare screen size if they aren't all the same shape. I didn't mean to imply either is better, I was just talking about volume. If the volume is the same, then other factors contribute to the weight like you said. I just wanted to point it out because it's pretty common for people to compare weight of two different laptops assuming they are the same size because they have the same diagonal screen length when they are significantly different because they have different aspect ratios.

 

you can game on any apple laptop. its just annoyingly loud from fans ramping up to lightspeed and beyond.

im not to impressed with a 650 in a 15 inch machine. clevo crammed the 650 into a 11 inch machine. surely in a 15 inch machine apple could do better. but i know they wont. midrange as usual

 

Too bad the most portable gaming laptop created yet only lasts 3.5 hours on battery with the dGPU off.

 

NotebookCheck.net got nearly six hours out of the M14x R2 with wifi off and over four hours of web surfing.

Alienware M14x R2 Review - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

EDIT: Never mind, I read it again, and now I understand you're talking about the 11" Clevo. Shame Alienware didn't make an M11x R4, because the M11x R3 (Sandy Bridge CPU, 540M) got a fantastic 7.5 hours of web surfing and 13 hours with wifi off.

 

Lighter and thinner material does not automatically mean low build quality.

I just handled a Sandy Bridge 15" Sony SE. I knew nothing about it until I saw a display model at Sams Club. I was immediately impressed by the clarity and viewing angle of the screen, which I thought to myself right then that it had to be an IPS screen. Then I picked it up, and thought to myself WOW this thing is light! It felt lighter than my 12.5" Latitude because roughly the same weight is spread out on a bigger frame. And I thought the build quality was very nice, really not that far off from the 13" Air I had for a while.

I will most likely be buying the updated Ivy Bridge version of the Sony. I never thought I'll ever buy anything larger than 13", but the 4.4lbs package with an awesome 1080p IPS screen sealed the deal. (I don't care about the supposed red/orange issue as I'm "weak" on certain shades of green/red/orange )

 

Im also on the team that wont buy the vaio S series at all. the 13 and 15 models suffer from extraneous flex all around the chassis, the screen is one thing that I think the most serious flaw.

 

I don't know why there's a big deal over the 2012 revision of the MBP having quad-core i7 chips. Isn't that already available for the 13-inch models and standard on both of the 2011 revisions of the 15 and 17-inch units? As for there being Kepler GPUs in those things, that'd definitely be nice, but I'm sure heat would be an issue even with the giant heatsink of an aluminum body.

 

Added more details. That screen is nearly unbelieveable.

 

Apple hasn't made a MBP 13 yet that has a quad core.

Sent from my HTC One S

 

No need to bump your thread just for an edit. Besides, your post was meant as a rumor and not about discussion of what was actually confirmed by Apple at WWDC.

 

I didn't know that, anyway just thought I would add more info. Are you going to get the new macbook kornchild2002?