Why C2D in the refreshed MBP 13" .

Since so many people in so many threads keep hounding over this, I thought I'd explain why there is Core 2 Duos in there.

Intel and nvidia are currently in legal battles. nvidia wants to make chipsets for Intel Core i3,5,7 and think they have the legal right to, but Intel denies that saying their previous rights end with the Core 2 Duos...

until this is settled, nvidia cannot make chipsets for anything newer than Core 2 Duos.

Apple wanted to refresh the Macbook Pros... just refresh, not a major change. This means, keeping the same design and adding in new parts. There is not enough space in there to fit as well as cool a discrete GPU, they must use an integrated. A future remodel job might be in the next update, but the current shape and size casing stands.

So Apple had to decide between two choices.

Upgrade to a Core i3,5,7 and use Intel HD graphics... which would be a much better processor with MUCH worse graphics.. even worse than the still selling standard Macbook...

or

Keep Core 2 Duos and upgrade the chipset to a better chipset from nvidia and be able to still use nvidia integrated graphics, and get graphics that are leagues better than the Intel HD.

I think they learned from their horrid use of Intel GM 950s and X3100s, that they should not do major skimping on the GPU, and instead stick to minor skimping on the CPU.

Which one would people have been more happy with? Tons of extra processing power in a 13", but decreased graphics performance... or the same CPU performance, and improved graphics performance...

none of this even takes into account the battery life, which needs to be high on a machine tahts supposed to be highly portable.

I'm not saying I'm happy... I wanted to get one. I would have bought it if they had redesigned it to work with a Core i3 and a Geforce 330m... but I understand why they haven't yet.

I hope nvidia and intel get bck on good working terms soon... cuz its the users who are suffering.

 

Intel giving nvidia a licence to build a chipset for core I ain't happening. The chipset for current processors is nothing more than an I/O hub, even the pci-express lanes connect directly to the cpu. There is no point in nvidia building a chipset for it.
Nvidia does have a licence to build chipsets for Core2 processors only.

 

Apple should have at least reduce the price of the MBP 13.

 

I saw the new MacBook at the store yesterday (same as before, but should have touch their undersides to measure the temps)... They worth their price for sure.

You want the greatest 13" laptop? Buy a VAIO Z - it has the power, screen, battery life, SSD, etc. It's also $2K - at least $500-$800 more than the MBP.

 

You want my honest opinion? Cost cutting.

The GT330M with a 256MB video memory. Yes, video memory is expensive. What I don't understand is, how the hell did Apple even manage to get a 256MB version? Even 512MB versions are rare. Did they go up to nVidia, look at the sales contract, and ask: "Is there anything cheaper? Can I get this for $5 less? Please? Oh, half memory? OK! I'll take it!"

It certainly has nothing to do with power consumption, or heat, or whatever, because the 512MB version is an option. An expensive option....

 

Add the SSD to the Apple...you're down to a $100 difference. The Sony still wins on processor/GPU/weight by far. The Sony is $1900 at Newegg right now. The MBP weighs 50% more too don't forget. You can get a spare battery in and still come in underweight.

The Z also negates the argument that Arrandale won't fit in a 13" form factor. It's integrating the northbridge which reduces the number of chips the board has to hold.

It's a smart marketing move to maximize profits. There's an insensitivity to price to enter the Macbook Pro range and they're taking advantage of it. If someone wants that MBP look/feel, they'll pay a premium to get in. 15/17" models are about productivity so you have to give a bit more performance to justify that kind of pricing since you can get serious workstations above 2k from any manufacturer. Bravo to their marketing people to segment just perfectly so people will still buy while buying up outdated parts that everyone else has put in the clearance bin.

 

I beg to differ.

Alienware managed to fit a 335M (actually quite a lot more powerful than a 330M) into the M11x-a netbook sized system-and it's running cool and perfect. Granted the system does use C2D as well, but it could easily have used an i5/i7 ULV with their built in IGPs.

They managed to fit it into an 11 inch system, as well as an 8 cell battery and a 2.5" hard drive, and two RAM slots. And for that it gets 8 hours of battery, not much less than the MBP 13" refresh.

I think Apple could easily have got an i5 into the MBP 13", along with a 330M or 335M. The processor's IGP would have allowed for a long battery life when needed, with a powerful GPU for when you want to use it. After all, they use a hybrid system such as that on the larger models, don't they?

I think most of all it would have been a cooling issue, though. The cooling on the MacBook line isn't exactly well known for its cooling prowess. They should have been able to adapt that, however. They did manage to fit a 330M into the bigger models with the same thickness, they should have been able to fit a sufficient heatsink and fan into this one.

That's just all my opinion on it at least.

 

The m11x isn't really a netbook sized system at all. It's thicker and deeper than the 13" MBP, and almost as heavy.

Between Core i + GMA HD and C2D + 320M, Apple made the right choice.
Mind you, I agree that Apple could have put a discrete GPU into their 13", but I can't say I'm surprised they didn't. I guess they didn't think it was worth the effort for the complete redesign it would have required. A definite failure on their part, but entirely predictable behaviour for Apple.

As for the 330M, cost-cutting is a legitimate reason for using the 330M, but there's no point in having 1GB of VRAM on such a weak card. That card simply won't cut it for 1920x1200, 1GB VRAM or no (Sorry, 17" MBP). At 1680x1050, the card would make some games playable, and perhaps 512MB of VRAM is in order there. On the other hand, the base 1440x900 MBP doesn't really need more than 256MB in its 330M.

Some non-gaming applications could perhaps make better use of the VRAM, but even so I still think the 330M is too weak a card to make good use of it.

 

I am sure Apple has enough engineering talent to design a 13" MBP that supports both Core i3 and an discrete GPU. Cooling is not a problem (with aluminum unibody design), and power is not a problem (I am sure people would be happy with only 6 hours of battery life instead of 10). Moving to Core i3 requires redesigning the entire mainboard, so the "refresh vs major upgrade" argument does not hold water either.

Why does MPB 13" stay with C2D? Because Apple cannot be bothered to upgrade the model. Apple is convinced that they can get away with it, so why upgrade? Selling C2D laptops for $1200 is much better business than selling Core i3 laptops for $1200, and it saves R&D costs too. If people keep buying mature technology at a premium price, why upgrade?

So here is my answer. MBP 13" uses C2D because Apple feels that a C2D MBP 13" remains competitive at the $1200 price point.

 

I hope to see them proven wrong.
For under $1000, perhaps at $900, it would be a pretty good deal. Although I'm a gamer, and I wouldn't buy it myself, I can see the appeal of a powerful integrated chip. It means you can do a lot more on battery without sacrificing too much battery life. Switching graphics solutions are nice, but you won't get much battery life while you're using the discrete GPU.

 

It's not so much competitiveness as opposed to exclusiveness. Frankly put, once you start "competing", Apple loses. Which is why their advertising campaigns highlight unquantifiable ease of use, design, etc (which can be all subjective) as opposed to hard specs (like performance notebook makers do).

 

There's honestly not a whole lot that you can do with nvidia 9400M graphics (3dmark 2100) that you can't do with Intel HD (3dmark06 1800). I'd choose a major CPU upgrade and very modest GPU downgrade over slight CPU upgrade and modest GPU upgrade.

They should at least give customers a choice. MBPs are not so low-volume that they can't afford to produce consumer (C2D and nvidia) and professional (Core i and Intel HD) variants.

 

with the updated intel driver the speed from the intel HD IGA and the 9400 are actaully closer than that of not equal.

 

I agree with the second half of your post (the part I do not quote), but I disagree with the first half (which I quoted above). Competition happens in a lot of different areas, not just hardware spec. People also consider ease of use, design aesthetics, ability to serve as a status symbol, etc. when they purchase a laptop. These attributes also have value to customers, so they also play a role in pricing decisions.

If Apple really have problems designing a good Core i3 13" MBP (which I doubt), they could have lowered the price of C2D 13" MBP to, say, $1000 (which is still a lot of money). But they did not -- because they believe that the aluminum unibody design, OSX, the "PRO" designation, and the glowing apple, all combined, will overcome the aging hardware spec and make people shell out $1200 in droves.

Will they be proved right? I have no idea at all.

 

GMA HD seems to do pretty well in 3Dmark, but it's still well behind in performance in actual games.

 

I believe I agree with the first part of your post, but not the second. Design is entirely subjective. While we may argue that brick-like notebooks or the ridiculous past MSI's with the flames on the back look horrid, whether or not the MBP looks better than a Thinkpad is entirely subjective and depending on circumstance.

The part I am disagreeing with is exactly the part you bolded. It's not taht they believe that the design will sell (plenty of companies have very study machines, or can put proprietary software on there, or can call it "PRO", or can put LEDs on their machines like the UFOs, or I mean the Alienwares), but that's not the reason they're selling. They're selling because their marketing department and business practices have managed to elevate them to a mythical status symbol. The answer to "why a mac?" has long since become "because it's a mac."

Now, the competitiveness as a company of course factors in promotion. It's probably the most significant part of the 4-Ps of the business model. In this respect, Apple is extremely competitive. Problem is, this is at the expense of consumers. Among the 4 Ps, this P is the one that has zero intrinsic value for consumers.

 

Now that you mentioned it, I should have added "ability to serve as status symbol" into the sentence that I highlighted in bold. If I could speculate, I think your answer to OP's question would be "because a status symbol does not require much computational power."

Is marketing laptops as a status symbol good or bad for the consumer? I have no idea. Some people believe, rightly or wrongly, that buying a status symbol improves their lives and makes them happy. As long as they are not spending my money, who am I to object?

 

Entire business strategy of BMW...given they have the fattest margins in the entire industry, I'd say it works.

 

Alright, happy to agree

 

Apple are past masters at selling old tech as advanced Apple only R&D high tech. The legions of Apple fans just lap it up and repeat the nonsense.

I can't blame them for selling older tech in the the 13" model if they can get away with it and avoid the cost of a redesign. Just get nVidia to reconfigure an integrated solution, describe it as unique to Apple, give the CPU a slight bump and increase the price.

The largest budget within Apple has and always will be marketing.

 

That may be true.

All the more reason to have 13" consumer and pro variants, imo.

 

Well the macbook pro has two fans while and macbook only has one so I'm not so sure, and the M11x is insanely thick.

 

Your statement hold true ONLY if the 15 inch i5/i7 Macbook pro has a discrete PCB from the motherboard which we will know when someone take it apart.
Moreover we already have lots of laptop from other OEMS with Intel chipset (HM55) with a Nvidia GPU inside.
It works well with Core i3s and G 310M so why can't Apple do the same?
Why do they insist on stubbornly sticking to Crappy Nforce boards?

 

If you read what I wrote.. I never said its impossible to design a machine thats 13" or even smaller that can use hotter parts.

In fact I said I wish they had done it.

I don't fully understand your points, i think you may be misunderstanding mine.

They wanted to do speed bumps to the machines, using current cases, current everything... just change the 1 board. The room they have in there didn't give them enough room to put on and cool a discrete GPU and memory. yes they could have redesigned the entire thing, added a few millimeters here and there, moved where ports may be.. how hinges work.. maybe a sloped bottom... decreased batter size... whatever... and gotten it to work. They didn't spend the time to do a total remake, they just wanted to speed bump it like they did the 15 and 17, waiting for a ful redesign later on... but they couldn't bump it up to a i3 without using Intel HD. Intel HD in Windows performs decently in benchmarks, but doesn't keep up in real world performance.

 

If they switched to Intel Chipset they can still retain the Nvidia GPU.

They just chose not to use i3.

Considering they only release/refresh a model like once every 6 months I don't think they can't put more effort into it.

 

So if they couldn't use an i3 in the 13inch for whatever reason, they should lower the price. Instead their selling 2008 hardware on a $1200 notebook. I suppose in the end its about supply and demand, and there will always be uneducated consumers buying the 13inch macbook, even if it ran a centrino.

 

I for one would love to see Centrino technology in the MacBook Pro line - I think what you're referring to is CELERON (Intel's "budget" chip line).

Centrino Mobile Technology is Intel's premium Processor+Network+Chipset solution touting their superior products familied together on systems where they are designed for maximum performance with minimum power consumption/maximum efficiency.

Since Apple is using nVidia mobos, this would never happen, let alone the fact that Intel WiFi solutions would add even more cost, and there is no driver support (today) in OS X for Intel Wireless, only Broadcom.

I also don't understand all of the talk about this being "2008 tech" in a new PC. These 2.66GHz C2D processors have hardly been around since 2008. The "P" series of C2D are 45nm chips released in early 2009 but have been increasing in clock speed and power efficiency/TDP since. These latest chips are still relevant in today's PCs - The "Core i" stuff is still brand-new - only a few months old in fact - so it will be a while before we see this architecture in all PCs. There are still many enterprise-class PCs out there being sold with C2D technology on board: Especially portables focused on efficiency and battery life (MBP 13 anyone?).

Chips don't degrade in performance just because some hip new name or buzzword is dropped by the manufacturer... My mid-2009 MBP 13 feels just as fast today as when I bought it in October. These new machines don't slow mine down at all. Does someone on here actually feel like their 6-9 month-old machine isn't worth keeping anymore???

In general, hardware is on a plateau these days compared to the "double your money" days of the 1990s and early 2000s. A year or two in processor releases doesn't change THAT much.

 

Architecturally the C2D has been around since 2006 so it is getting on. It was such a step forward it still stands up today. Intel have refined the architecture and supporting chipsets through their tick/tock update cycle. Die shrink, increase FSB etc but it's largely the same processor.

It's all very well saying well my notebook feels quick but it's all relative. I'm quite sure a Pentium III still feels quick carrying out certain tasks until you try the same task on a core i5 etc.

Really is astonishing, only Apple could get away releasing an updated model with a 4 year old CPU design and have their fan base defend the move. Is it so unreasonable for consumers paying a premium for Apple's not to expect at least vaguely current technology?

It's a really, really poor excuse. No other notebook manufacturer would have the cheek to try this and increase the price at the same time.

Apple's marketing is brilliant so they'll continue to sell them by the bucketload.

 

The P series were out in June '08 (P8400-P8600) up to 2.53Ghz and the 3MB cache 2.6 variant came out in Dec '08 so technically they're right. The design itself was a tick (of intel's tick/tock strategy) so it was primarily a die shrink of the original Core2Duo design from '06.

Centrino isn't necessarily more power efficient than what Apple's put together anyway. Believe me the cost of a Centrino badge isn't why Apple didn't go w/ an all Intel solution.

I should hope no one is dropping their unibody pros for the latest machines b/c there likely isn't that huge of a difference from them. People with older machines looking to upgrade may see a bit of a spec gap but the Apple marketing machine is pretty good at making that up.

 

Is a laptop from a year ago still worth keeping? Of course.

However, if someone, today, offers to buy my laptop with the price I paid a year ago*, I would have sold it without a second thought. It may be worth keeping, but nothing** is THAT worth keeping.

* Assuming that my laptop is a year old, which it is not.
** Except for Apple products, apparently.

 

Didn't Apple sign a contract with Nvidia to produce MB/MBP notebooks with their chipsets/mainboards (that happened before Intel's lawsuit with Nvidia over not allowing Nvidia to produce their chipsets with the Core i3/5/7 CPUs)? That may be the main reason why the 13" MBPs are stuck with the Nvidia chipsets as Apple have to satisfy their contractual obligations with Nvidia somehow while introducing the new Intel CPUs only in the 15" & 17" segments. IMHO, what is being rolled out is a "win" for all parties involved (Apple, Intel, & Nvidia).

 

In Bold, it's priceless. You should make a youtube on that particular line...I just like humors thats all.

 

nVidia is really sucking lately, with this whole Intel problem and the fact that they only have one dx11 card out that costs $500 and that's if you could even get it. ATI is way ahead of them.

 

I hold you to this.
If we found out that the 15" Macbook Pro with GT 330M doesn't contain a discrete Nvidia PCB you got to eat your own words...
It means they are not affected by the lawsuit it was their own decision to include a C2D in the 13"

 

My BMW 3 series convertible is the best car I have ever owned. Their strategy is to create prioduct status but have the machines to back it up. The Apple might try to emulate BMW's marketing but their products are no where near as well engineered.

 

And when you do play games with it is sounds like a jet engine prepping for takeoff. I had a M11x but returned it because it was buggy, had poor build quality (despite the reviews), the screen was awful, and it was extremely loud when the 335 kicked in. Also for the record, Dell's customer service and tech support departments are useless.

Apple has always been good with CS and TS. They speak English too.

 

Like it has been said before, the only reason that they've done it is likely because they can't use an nVidia IGP with an i3/i5/i7.

They won't use a dedicated graphics card in the 13" models, because of heat, power, and space. And Apple have learnt from the past; they aren't going to stick in a powerful processor with a crap graphics chip.

As a user, I'd rather have a C2D and an nVidia 320M IGP, than an i7 and an Intel 4500 IGP.

Just as a note, would you rather have the laptop loud and running cool, or quiet and overheating? You most likely got a buggy model, as every person I've heard from has been perfectly happy with their M11x in all areas.

Yes, it's going to be louder than a MacBook, that's because a MacBook doesn't have a 335M that's going to be stressed regularly. And so the MacBook (Pro) doesn't need to be cooled as much. If you're used to a quiet computer not built for gaming then it's going to sound loud when you use a computer that actually needs powerful cooling. For the record, it goes to about 45dB, which is not THAT loud (although noticeable if you aren't using headphones).

You might have had a poor experience with them, but there are very many happy M11x owners out there. Thought I'd just point that out.

 

I agree. But there are a ton of unhappy owners as well. The M11x build quality cannot even be compared to Apple. The unibody MBP cooling is not insufficient by any means either. I just found my M11x to be almost unbearable as the fan not only was loud but was not properly calibrated in the system and would often throttle when temps were in the 30's.

I totally agree again. I wish Intel would just start making decent IGPs or stop making GPUs altogether.

 

The point isn't Core 2 + 320 or i7 + intel, there are tons of PCs in the macbook price range with a core i CPU and a GPU like the 320m. The $999 hp dv91 has a quad core i7 and a 320m, don't tell me apple couldn't figure out how to make a i3 work with an integrated 320m, or just use the discrete version with 1GB of vram like everyone else. If they couldn't they shouldn't be charging ultra-premium prices for a sup-par and out dated product. Why are people defending a $1200 laptop that still runs a core2? I'm only talking about the 13inch macbooks here. 15inch and 17inch actually run modern technology.

 

I cannot find any info on this laptop. Its 13" with a core i7 and a 320m? Link?

 

It is not like they cannot, they are not allowed to. Yet...

 

I am using a Laptop with Core i3 and Nvidia G 310M and the Nvidia chip is soldered on the mainboard.

 

Their 15 inch also have GT 330M soldered on the mainboard so what is the issue with the 13 inch?

 

Is it an Apple? I think it is a contract between Nvidia and Apple. Not all manufactures.

Yes, but it has the intel IGP as well.

 

Don't think Confirm first.
So you haven't explain why they can't mount an i3 on the 13 incher.
i3 has Intel HD Graphics as well.
You got to be a better Apple lawyer than this.

 

Read this and consider.

Apple CANNOT combine an i3, i5, or i7 with an nVidia IGP. Why? Because an nVidia IGP would mean an nVidia chipset.

There is a large legal battle being fought between nVidia and Intel right now, with Intel saying that nVidia's rights to making chipsets for Intel processors ended with the C2D line. Until nVidia gets rights, they CANNOT make a chipset for i3/i5/i7 processors. And that means they CANNOT combine an nVidia IGP with an i3/i5/i7 processor.

As for the whole 'discrete GPU' matter. Discrete GPUs, any way you put it, use more battery up than their integrated cousins. One of the major selling points of the new MacBook Pro line is their massively long batteries. Putting a dedicated GPU in there would have cut the battery by several hours.

Although, I agree. They could have combined the i3/i5/i7s with their built in Intel IGPs with a dedicated chip, for the best of both worlds. However, that isn't cheap. Part of the point of the 13" MBP is its significantly lower cost, as compared to the larger models, and putting in a dedicated GPU along with a newer processor would have bumped up the price considerably (or at least, reduced Apple's profits).

 

I LOL at this.
My Laptop with G 310M cost a 700 bucks.

 

Lower cost compared to the other MBP models.

Oh and just to point it out, the 310M is a dedicated chip, so it CAN be combined with an i3/i5/i7 without Intel complaining.

 

I don't think most i3s are any better than the C2D Apple has in there. We need an i5 or i7.

I would like to know why they couldn't at least have used the 6MB cache (same wattage) C2D chips?

Also, does everyone agree Apple will *eventually* use the i5 or i7 in the 13" MBP? If so, why make the switch for the 15"/17" now and not the whole line? It's a little weird.

 

If you read the thread, you'd have some ideas why they made the switch for the 15"/17" and not the whole line.