Why C2D in the refreshed MBP 13" .

1)There is performance difference i3 > C2D
A lower clock i3 > higher clock C2D check cpubenchmarks at passmark.
2)More Cache != More performance
3)Possibly when they cleared the C2D stock leftovers, so Macfans grab them quick so they can release something better for you to buy again.

 

i3's can be notibly faster on some applications especially apps and OS's that support hyperthreading. but yes a UL series i5 would be sweet.

cheaped out or had a good suppy on hand

who knows, I found it strange but it did make up my mind to go buy an i5 based 12" machine for on the go POWER needs

 

What computer are you using?

 

1) Depends on the C2D and the i3. The higher end C2Ds-2.66GHz and above-will outrun the i3s in dual-core programs.
2) Nope. Cache size has very little impact on performance. Tests have shown that an increase in cache provides only a very very small performance boost.
3) True.

 

1)True check cpubenchmark for details
2)Do you do programming?
!= is Not Equals to

 

weinter what laptop do you have?

 

lol u should of listed your points:
0)
1)
2)

 

Where in my comments did I say that Apple are using Nvidia mainboards on the 15" & 17" MBPs?

What I'm saying is that because of that contract that has Apple agreeing to use Nvidia mainboards for their machines & the fact that Intel do not allow their Core i family of CPUs to be installed onto Nvidia mainboards, that is why Apple is sticking with Core2Duo CPUs on the 13" MBPs as those likely come with Nvidia mainboards (thus the integrated Nvidia 320M GPU).

Of course, there is no doubt that the 15" & 17" MBPs are using Intel mainboards, given that those have the Core i CPUs & Intel integrated GPUs.

 

weinter, I think I see the confusion here.

You're talking about Intel Core i CPUs, Nvidia integrated GPUs installed onto Intel chipsets/mainboards.
I'm talking about Intel Core i CPUs, Nvidia integrated GPUs installed onto Nvidia chipsets/mainboards.

So now you see why Apple has to go with the Core2Duo CPUs on the 13" MBPs?

 

i think you guys are getting things mixed up.. or just not understanding terminology.

A discrete GPU does not mean its on a different board... its NOT...

an integrated GPU is NOT the same thing as a GPU soldered to the motherboard.

an integrated GPU is talking about one that is integrated as part of the chipset.. it doesn't have its own dedicated physical GPU chip... a discrete GPU has its own dedicated GPU chip (and ram) soldered onto the main board... it could be on a separate PCB, but it doesn't have to be.

You guys are talking like.. just because the GPU is soldered to the motherboard that its an IGP.... its not.

 

when would people think is the soonest the 13" would be refreshed with an i5/i7 (without causing the ppl who buy one today to go into revolt)? Aug/Sept (back to school)?

 

So why do you see a need to stick to integrated GPU?
You guys fail to see the diff.
Difference between IGP and Discrete Chip IS THE PRESENCE OF DISCRETE VRAM chips
Don't tell how I don't know, my laptop has discrete graphics and VRAM chips soldered on the mainboard not a discrete PCB
The whole point is Apple could make 13 inchers a miniature of 15 inchers with Intel HD and i3 but they didn't
not because they couldn't or it consumes more power (They have automatic graphics switching in 15 inchers),
it is because they didn't want to full stop.
Stop arguing with me about how they have to have IGP in their laptops.

 

Point taken.

 

the memory chips are only 1 part... the GPU is there as well. There is no GPU chip on a chipset integrated video. You have a lot of extra interconnects, ram chips, and an actual GPU that needs proper cooling all to fit in. Integrated single chip solutions like the 9400 and the 320M used here has a single chip that is the entire chipset, as well as the GPU.

 

doh123 is correct here. There's a big difference between a system with just integrated graphics and one with a dGPU. First of all, there's the separate GPU chip, as well as discrete VRAM, and all of the infrastructure required, especially the PCI express bus. All of these things require extra power, and hence produce extra heat, compared to integrated graphics. They also take up space on the motherboard.

No-one is denying that it's possible to make a 13" system with a discrete GPU; there's ample proof of that. However, to make such a system Apple would have had to redesign their 13" MBP, and they obviously didn't think that was worthwhile just yet.

I think there's some rather positive aspects to the 320M integrated graphics used in the new 13"; it should be relatively powerful for an IGP, with its 48 shader cores, and yet power consumption should be quite reasonable. If you wanted to, say, play World of Warcraft for a good few hours away from a power plug, this could easily be your system of choice.

In the meantime, if you want a 13" with a discrete GPU, Sony and ASUS, soon to be followed by Acer, have Apple solidly beaten.

 

That doesn't answer the question of why they didn't make 13 inch a miniature 15 inch.
Answer: They didn't want to simple as that.

 

You're a genius weinter! Who would've guessed that Apple made the 13" MBP the way they wanted to make it?

 

No because a lot people kept insisting on technical difficulties that Apple didn't want to screw with their specs (my girlfriend cheated on me so i must have done something wrong...there must be some valid reason why she did that) and I am trying to show this was just deliberate to increase their profit margin and dump the remaining C2D stocks(your girlfriend cheated on you because she is a jerk period).

 

The Sony VAIO Z is in itself adequate proof of that. There was never any need for all this fuss about PCBs.

However, we can at the very least say it wouldn't have been trivial for Apple to do it. They would've needed to improve the cooling on the 13" to put a discrete GPU in, and probably rearrange their PCB and ports a little.
The fact that lots of people are buying the 13" MBP proves that Apple made the right decision.

 

HP just released an i7 in a 13.3in ProBook.

 

So let me get this straight.
Your Girlfriend (Macbook) was late for the Core iX Party (made you wait).
Shows up with a Core 2 Duo in a Core iX Party
Becomes more demanding than ever (More expensive),
Performs poorer than average (relative to others in the Core iX party)even though she became more demanding.

And you still think she(it) is awesome and has a valid reason for the above? Just because she has a different hair colour (Operating System) and she is a woman (laptop), and she goes around telling people how hot she is?
**facepalm**

 

Oh, I definitely wouldn't buy the 13" MBP. However, a lot of other people will, and if I was working for Apple I would've been in favour of the decision they made.

 

Yea me too anything for the huge year end bonus.

 

Just like every woman ever.

 

I'm sure I've done worse to get a year end bonus. Just look at the wall street types.

Bronsky

 

Apple didn't do it just because they wanted to rip off or milk customers for every penny... they did it because it was a minor bump and they CHOSE not to take the time to redesign the entire machine in the ways that would be needed to add a discrete GPU.

Should they have? of course they should have... I'm only explaining what they did and some reasons behind it. I don't think they can actually do it in the MBP 13" size keeping an optical drive in there and a 3.5" hard drive.. as well as the same dimensions. Show someone else who has done it.. all the closest ones are slightly bigger or shaped in a way to allow more airflow in certain areas... which show that Apple would have to majorly redesign the machine.... and it would look so different it would be out of place looking with the 15" and 17" and they want them to look uniform.

If nvidia isn;t able to make chipset for intel at the next refresh, I wouldn't be surprised if we see totally new designed 13, 15, and 17s for a new look with better cooling for all 3.

 

Do you work for them? Were you party to product design meetings? Coming up w/ possible scenarios isn't necessary when dealing w/ business decisions.

The simple answer is they did it b/c they can and people will still buy it. No need to rationalize the difficulties of putting a Core i5-i7 into a small/thin package. HP got a quadcore into a package just as thin on the Envy 15 and Sony got an i7-620M into a 3lb 13" machine w/ discrete graphics and optional Blu-ray. I'd venture Apple spent more money on market research than they did redesigning the 13" MBP (given Nvidia likely did most of the work).

Eventually Apple will have to update the 13 b/c the C2D will be discontinued at some point or the gap between what's available from other companies and Apple outgrows the brand equity they've built with their customers. It's why MBP's are rarely over 3k anymore b/c that's the upper limit that people are willing to pay for 17" prosumer machines.

Apple's not a charity despite all the goodwill they've created with their outsider style marketing and hugely loyal fanbase. The bottom end of the MBP range has greater price insensitivity and Apple took advantage of that. The 15/17 machines are far more expensive and require a bit more performance to justify their cost so Apple updated them first. If the 13 doesn't sell or slows down, they'll update it but it's their cash cow in the MB line so why give away what you can charge for and still have people happy they've entered the Mac ecosystem w/ a sleek aluminum unibody built from 2 yr old parts. It's why BMW gets away w/ 6yr product cycles while everyone else has to redesign every 4 yrs w/a refresh every 2.

 

Is she hot?

Wait, are we still talking about the Macbook Pro 13"?

 

She looks damn fine, but she isn't very good in bed.

 

She keeps saying she is hot but few malware writers target her(low percentage in the market).
and she tells everyone you are hot because you are going out with her.

 

Wow. Thanks a lot for that & I really appreciate it.

I'm very sorry for offending you with any of my previous comments & I sincerely apologize. I was just trying to have a good meaningful conversation & now I'm being seen as someone who argues with you on purpose. I guess stupid people like me can never be able to say anything meaningful & should always be treated this way because I deserve fully that.

Not trying to get into any more arguments with you but just want to know what you think about that contract/agreement Apple has with Nvidia. So by what you're saying, contracts &/or agreements are of no importance anymore? & Apple can just tear up any contracts &/or agreements how they deem fit without paying any compensations?

 

With a 30-40% make up they would EASILY recoup and losses from a contract cancelation.

I have a 1st gen Unibody Macbook(non-pro, 2.4GHz) 2 revisions later I see NO change that would make me want to spend $1,200+ again, and I'm already 2 gens back. I see the EXACT same laptop as I have now, just with a bigger battery and GPU swap.

 

^^^
But there's and SD slot !!!!
lol
a

ps the screen is also better, but I agree there is not $1200 worth there, but on the upside...thats enough $$$ for a nice holiday right there.

 

Sadly, that very first sentence shows the flaw in your opinion.

Whatever we can try and say, at the end of the day, Apple is a business. They try and make money for a living. EVERY DECISION has to be thought of carefully with potential profits or losses, and because they're a company, of course they'll go for the decision that will make the most money.

Yes, they chose not to redesign the machine. That's for money reasons. It's also for money reasons why they won't use the i3/i5/i7 and a dedicated GPU; they don't come as cheap as an IGP and a C2D. Like I said, money. That, and this is the 'low end, low cost' model in the MBP line-keeping it cheaper will attract more customers. So, more money. They might also have some C2D processors left over as suggested earlier; why not keep selling those and earn more money?

I'm not necessarily saying that Apple is greedy and trying to 'milk their customers'. They ARE trying to make as much money as possible though, because they're a business, and at the end of the day, the aim of any profiting business is to maximise their profits.

 

Not even. There have been IGPs with the option of having their own VRAM (such as the Radeon XPRESS 200M). doh123 is about as spot on as can get in explaining the MBP 13" situation (in my opinion), but unless someone from Apple in charge of the decision tells us, we'll never know the truth.

 

I think this whole post can be summed up by the big man himself....

a

 

The thing I find most interesting is the pairing of a 320M integrated chip with an SU series CULV processor. Take this technology directly into an 11.6" subnotebook or 10" netbook, price it at $550 and you have a smaller, more portable version of the best selling Asus UL30VT.

 

Or why not just pair it with a more powerful dedicated chip, in an 11.6" subnotebook?

Oh, wait, that's already been done.

Although, an SU processor and a 320M would be a pretty potent combination, provided the price is right. If it gets close to $800 then that'd be too close to the superior M11x (with its dedicated graphics, 8 hour battery, insane lighting, overclocking, etc.) for people to really want to go for the weaker combination.

If they could pair an SU processor and a 320M for about $500-$600 in a 10"-12" platform, it could sell very well.

 

Because the 11.6" in question is pretty much the same size and weight as Apple's 13". Plus, the Apple would have a much better screen.

 

I don't think the average consumer really cares about dedicated GPUs. I mean I walk into Best Buy and maybe 1 or 2 out of the 35 laptops have dedicated GPUs. Everything else? GMA950 etc.

 

Well that's ok then, just because of the ignorance of the average consumer means it's ok for Apple to charge premium prices for outdated technology? They do make quite a big thing of the supposed special technology in their products. Style over substance?

OSX is great but there comes a point where they are seriously over charging for their products.

 

I think you just summed up apple

 

I don't think they over charge, but that's just my opinion...

 

Then your opinion is wrong.

 

No. Yours is.

The Avalanche will sweep the sharks

 

the 15in macbook base model has 160GB less storage, no bluray, and same CPU and slower GPU then a $980 Sony. You don't call that an over charge?

 

(deleted post - confused MBP 13 with 15)

 

Fact: Opinions can't be wrong.

 

They can be misinformed ...

 

That's just your opinion.