Silly to buy a MBP now?

a 210 would be nice as it is a little faster than the 9600 BUT,.... it is a dedicated GPU so they need to continue using the 9400 southbridge and use it in a swap configuration like the 15" and 17" with the 9400m and 9600 or find a different chipset all together. Higher thermal footprint as well and MBP's dont need more heat.

 

Can't they use Arrandale's GPU instead of the 9400m? I mean it comes with the CPU so it would be a waste to not use it.

 

They possibly will but hopefully have a switchable option with a discreet card as well ... an ATI 5000 series preferably

 

Thing is no one knows how fast arrandale is. Since Intel has said that it's only a faster version of a Intel integrated 4500M, and not an actual brand new IGP. They don't have the time to engineer a brand new processor architecture/size shrink/ and new GPU architecture. So they're just slapping on faster versions of the current Intel IGP. They'll have better GPU's on the processor chip later, but no one knows how fast this version really is.


Which is why everyones thinking a dedicated GPU too for switchable. Since rumors say that the Intel IGP on Arrandale is actually still weaker or comparable to the Nvidia 9400M series. So everyone's hoping on the next gen on macbook pros that the GPU's are not weaker than the current gen. Hence the dedicated/switchable thoughts...

Edit:....With a huge AFAIK at the end of everything. Hah

 

While I didn't make it explicit in my previous post, I was replying directly to crazycanuk's idea of having a 9400m+210m switchable solution and suggesting that the Arrandale IGP and 210m together might make more sense.

Unless if you're arguing that you won't accept anything less powerful than the 9400m for the "low power" card, which is another story altogether.

 

An arrandale IGP and a 210 is possible, but then you are building pretty much the exact same GPU speeds into the Dedicated and possibly slowing down the IGP. An IGP and a 280 would be nice but I can not see the thermal footprint being acceptable for awhile yet

 

I've been waffling on whether to go from PC to MBP for a while now. As a user who knows I could benefit from Core i7, I am currently waffled away from MBP since they are not competitive with current PC's on the market in terms of pure performance. They do still crush everyone when it comes to design, feel and battery though. I want to want one and am willing to pay a reasonable premium for it, but I am not willing to accept second tier performance and still pay that premium.

I also wanted to throw in my 2 cents regarding the significance of jumping from 2 cores to 4 cores (4 threads to 8 threads with Intel's hyperthreading). I think people are discounting the importance of this over the life of your computer. Even web browsers are getting into multithreading. I guess I tend to keep my computers longer than most (suffering on a 5 year old Vaio right now) so maybe this is more important to me than others.

 

aesthetics and feel the MBP's may be ahead but even in battery they are behind some of the ASUS, Thinkpads and Dulls a good example is I can run my ul50VG for about 3 hours longer with my screen at 50% and be running flash video. as for performance .... ya not so much for outright speed some of my el cheapo disposables are running circles around my MBP 15 and 17" current refreshes

 

Regarding battery, are those regular C2D, or the ULV Core 2 Duo or (god forbid) Solos? Most PC's that meet or exceed MBP battery seem to have compromised performance (at least in the ones I've noticed).

 

they are a FACTORY overclocked CULV C2D chip which oddly enough I can't complain one bit on their performance, for most applications they can match a standard C2D 2.5. yes I was quite suprised as well on that.

 

Completely Agree. Suffering on my 5 year old Gateway 7510GX laptop now. , it's why I am waiting it out a few more months before apple refreshes them, since all these components are kind of second tier now.

 

Pfff,,,I've got you both beat with a ~7 year old Inspiron...

 

intel IS developing a new GPU architecture. its called larrabee. basically, its a x86 chip with many cores(how many cores depend on the specific model - more cores = higher performance = higher cost, obviously) AND some specific graphics hardware. a freaky hybrid pretty much. however, its future is pretty gloomy; its massively behind schedule AND under-performing. so, larrabee may or may not turn out to be simply another IGP architecture as opposed to becoming a discrete card.

also, you CANNOT have 9400m and arrandale on the same setup. nvidia doesn't have the license to make QPI chipsets yet.

 

Yes, I am quite aware intel is developing a new GPU. But for the upcoming Arrandale release the GPU's on that are not going to be any new, which was my point. The new GPU architecture is going to be for Larrabee, as you said, which is even further down the road, and hence, nothing to care about right now. Arrandale is the next processor update/release (tick to the tock or w.e.) and its IGP will based of the current Intel IGP's...a.k.a. terrible Intel 4500 Media Accelerator thing.

Oh, and Larrabee will be an IGP, it is Intel's future plan for all processors. They are not looking to make a dedicated GPU now, everything after Arrandale will be integrated.

Quick google brought this up. It's about 2/3 down on the page.
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-32nm-Clarkdale--Arrandale-CPU-Preview/

Edit: Sorry to keep this thread alive, since I am aware there are TONS of threads about Apple and whether to buy now or not. But I just had to reply. =D

 

I have serious doubts about Larrabee too. I am not believing the hype.

They focused on amoving target and Larrabee is late, IMO that means the target they will hit is already obsolete - 4870/260 level performance is midstream now.

Also, you need commitment to driver updates - Intel has a decade old track record of driver failure now. Why expect it to change?

Anyways, I thought I would pop by and drop a big fat I told you so. No i7 MBP was released in the timeframe speculated by some vigorous debaters.

And Arrandale is not that interesting. A Mobility 4650 is, but at 20% faster than current models I don't doubt my decision to buy a MBP in September.

If Apple finds a way to cram i7 into a 15" and gives us a 4830 like HP - while keeping a .95" thickness and 7-8 hour battery life - then I will buy for sure. I am not holding my breath.

The new models will be 16:9 too I suspect - so 1080p on a 15" will be a lovely change.

 

The lack of 1600x900 on the. 13 or 1920x1080/1200 on the 15 is what's keeping me from buying it

 

That would be cool, but factories will be making them in a few weeks and there has been no peep from the leaky Chinese ODMs that a Mobility 5650 is being incorporated into designs (has it even been announced).

 

I wish I had that kind of patience - but I can say I have used really old PowerBooks in the past (always happily). My hope is that Apple will not temp me with some insane quantum leap in performance that forces me to upgrade... by quantum leap I mean 10,000 score in 3dmark06 when in Windows 7. I should be safe for a while.

 

I have an old Dell 15 inch with 1920x1200 resolution. Great for work but it has a Pentium 4 in it and it gets rather toasty. I have an old HP laptop with 1680x1050 and I use it daily to display stock charts. These old high-res lappys are very hard to find today.

 

I don't think very many thought the quad i7 was going in a MBP, most said Arrandale was the chip to be in the next MBP.

We don't have benches of Arrandale yet, so I wouldn't say that its not that interesting. It has same architecture of the quad i7, but just a dual core. But it has an integrated gpu and the CPU is clocked higher.

This would lead to very powerful dual cores that are efficient; being able to switch to discrete graphics.

 

6 year old Acer Ferrari being used here as my main computer. Now running Windows 7 and showing a 4.0 Windows Experience Index, which is higher than a lot of <$999 laptops being sold today, including my GF's new HP and Toshiba laptps.

Also, the 1680x1050 resolution is unmatched and so difficult to find today without custom order from somewhere or picking up a ridiculously huge 16.4/17/18.4" screens.

I've convinced myself that I can use MBP's smaller 1440 resolution, but the mediocre CPU is holding me back.

 

I was thinking of buying a couple of 27 inch iMacs, one for work, one for home, one for son's apartment. I wouldn't need laptops for most of the time if I did that. Apple's done a good job getting iMac prices down.

 

I ordered a 13'', 2.26 GHz Macbook Pro yesterday!
It'll be my first Mac, and I couldn't be more thrilled!

I asked myself: Why not?
Sure, it might be updated within the next few months, but I had to do it sometime, right? The funds were there, the need was there (my Sony VAIO VGN-N325E is toast), so why not? Technology constantly updates itself, and based on the rave reviews I have heard about the new Macbook Pros, I decided to take the plunge. I won't be using it for anything hardcore, so it should be a match made in heaven! I say: GO FOR IT!