Why C2D in the refreshed MBP 13" .

Actually, its not based off my opinion, even though my opinion happens to agree with this fact.

From the dictionary(that comes with mac):
opinion |əˈpinyən|
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

Since opinions don't have to be based on facts, they can't be wrong. QED

 

Erm sorry?
I own a Aspire 4530 with Nvidia 9100M G on the box it said it had 256MB supposedly.
But when i dissembled the laptop there was NO Dedicated VRAM on Mainboard.
Plus when I install Windows 7 64bit 256MB was still taken from system memory. (I have 4GB usable was 4GB-256MB)
So when it said 256MB it means 256MB dedicated TAKEN from system memory modules.

Point being are you sure you can locate the VRAM on the board which is separated from the system memory modules?

 

Yes, the vast majority of IGPs will use System RAM, but that doesn't mean all of them do.
The point is that the one thing that makes an IGP an IGP is that there isn't a separate GPU chip.

 

I'm sorry. But maybe I'm just lost. Correct me if any of my facts are wrong. To answer the question posed in the thread title, there were a number of barriers to releasing a Macbook Pro with an i3.

1. Licensing rules and a pending lawsuit. Intel's agreement with Nvidia was to allow Nvidia produce chipsets only up to the Core 2 Duo line. Nvidia was strictly barred from producing integrated graphics chips (or chipsets?) for the i-series processors.

2. Apple in theory as one person earlier notes could've designed a Macbook Pro 13 to have an i3/i5 processor and dedicated Nvidia GPU and Intel's integrated graphics without trampling on Intel's licensing agreement. But this would've required redesigning the MBP 13's innards to accommodate the new i-series chips. I believe someone in another thread noted that the IGP is now included on the same die as the CPU? Redesigning the MBP 13 to accommodate the new CPU and GPUs within a small space would've consumed significant engineering resources that for many months back were being consumed by the iPad.

Thus the choice was between either upgrading the RAM and the integrated GPU using fewer engineering resources and $ and redesigning the MBP 13 altogether so it could contain a robust dedicated Nvidia GPU like the ones found in the MBP 15 and 17.

3. There's the issue of product differentiation. One of the biggest mistakes companies make is cannibalizing their own product lines with other products that are too similar and in the end compete against each other. It's like putting identical engines, powertrains, and suspension settings on a Lexus and a Camry. Both are great cars aimed at different market segments. But no sane Toyota executive would advocate doing all 3 at once lest he execute such movies, watch Camries and Lexuses eat into each other's sales, and consequently invite the wrath of the watchful shareholder. If Apple had gone down the route of introducing an i3 alongside a dedicated Nvidia GPU, the average customer would've had less of a reason to opt for a MBP 15 or 17. The performance gains with the i5's and i7's would not suffice to prevent customers from migrating over to the MBP 13 to save hundreds of dollars. The presence of an Nvidia dedicated GPU that's too closely similar to those found in the 15 and 17 create too much parity. This would only hurt Apple's profit margins. So essentially Apple was forced to go down the route of upgrading the integrated GPU. In the end, Apple needs both the CPU and GPU as differentiators among their product lines to achieve healthy sales across a wide spectrum of customers with different needs.

In closing, we can only deduce that the main culprit of Apple's decision to stay with the MBP 13 is Intel.

 

How much models does Apple release nowadays to warrant that "it is too expensive to redesign a board?"
Answer: 13,15 and 17, 3 models
3 Models and you tell me it is too expensive and difficult.
And they refresh it only half annually.
Cannabalising marketshare?
You mean a 13 incher with small resolution and low weight can cannibalise a model with larger bigger screen and heavier body?
A SUV can cannibalise the market share of a Saloon Car?
Awesome analogy I am simply lost for words.

 

Whether a company deems a course of action to be "too expensive" or "too difficult" is not up to the customer, but up to the executives of Apple. I'd put it past Apple to avoid fixating too closely to the idle musings of a NBR member. Remember, we are speculating and I'm willing to go out on a limb and declare that that very few of us have credible insider connections to Apple's engineering team to verify with absolute certainty that our hypotheses have any weight in gold.

Also, love your analogy, but it's a bit too exaggerated to fit the situation. Let's take things a bit more logically, shall we?

I'm only basing this on history. The last generation of Macbooks had dedicated GPUs included on the higher end MBP 15 and 17 lines. The MBP 13 never got a dedicated Nvidia GPU. I would say the MBP 13 was and is like a Corolla with sporty suspension tuning. It's got character. But it just doesn't compare in terms of performance and comfort to the Camry. The MBP 15s are simply iterations of the Camry. But in this case, the Camries have varying options for engines, powertrains, and suspension settings to provide the prospective driver with his choice of comfort vs. sporty performance. The GPU in this case comes default--it's how the Camry is differentiated away from the Corolla, the MBP 13. The MBP 17 is a rather unique case in which a full-sized sedan (Honda Accord, 2011 Hyundai Sonata) with a bigger chassis is furnished for more legroom for both the driver and passengers.

 

You do realise they could have offered a 13" MB PRO with real graphics and a Core i3 do you?

 

The 13" never had a discrete GPU before, so it's not that surprising that this one doesn't either. Sure, it was possible, but I would definitely have bet against it happening. Core i with Intel GMA HD was a possibility, but a discrete GPU would've cut into Apple's profits too much to justify, considering that the 13" is still selling very well with C2D.

 

double post please delete

 

Apple resellers in my area are telling me that entry level 13 is selling like hotcakes. I guess people will buy regardless.

 

My most humble apologies. I was referring to the last generation of MBPs, but accidentally said "Macbooks" instead in the middle of one sentence. Sorry if the omission of a single word incensed you in any way.



As I said earlier, few doubt Apple can package a dedicated GPU with the MBP 13. I'm not so sure that anyone here disputes that point with proper support. Examples abound of other 13.3" notebooks out in the market that come with a dedicated GPU. The problem with belaboring your argument is it neglects to account for the fact that Apple's business model isn't identical to any single notebook maker's. As LackofCheese pointed out, Apple still managed to find a sweet spot in the market with its MBP 13. Though there aren't definitive sale numbers available, the news articles attesting to the surge in sales are enough evidence to prove this very point.

Quite frankly, you're not doing yourself any favors by repeating yourself. Everyone gets it already, so you might fare better in giving it a rest. Groaning about the moral failings of Apple executives for not rolling out an i3/Dedicated Nvidia solution won't accomplish much beyond providing me with amusement. We believe you. Apple had the engineering and design capacities to roll out an i3 with a dedicated GPU on a 13.3." But they simply chose not to and in doing so, they "got away with it" as a others took care to state in their own language.

Maybe I'm mistaken. But you seem to be attaching too much emotional import to this atrocity. Here, this should make you feel better.

 

Then someone should tell these buyers they're being hoodwinked. Maybe we can organize a class action lawsuit against Apple. For dishonesty and lack of charity. I'll pay good money to see how that would hold up in court with the judge. But then again, I've seen people sue for more ridiculous things and get away with it. :laugh:

 

I can understand being disappointed that the 13" MBPs don't offer an i5. But an i3?

Clock-speed for clock-speed, the i3s seem to be faster than the old C2Ds. But the faster mobile C2Ds (Apple uses the P9600, right?) are significantly faster than i3s in single threaded benchmarks, and about the same in multithreaded ones.

Given what the average buyer will use a 13" MBP for, and the amount of time that CPU use will be pegged, I think the reasonable conclusion is that only real benefit of having an i3 would be psychological.

I don't mean this as a blind defense of Apple. We could just as easily be wondering about paying $1500 for a notebook with a Core i3 in it.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Compaq-V2000-M2...ViewItemQQptZMotherboards?hash=item3efecf04e8

Is a motherboard for a laptop that I've owned (Compaq V2000 + ATi X200M + AMD Turion), and I believe I can see it on the other side of the board (a little hard to see in the picture). I can assure you that it had 128MB of dedicated memory, in addition to being able to use HyperMemory.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/note.../Pages/ati-radeon-express-200m-amd-specs.aspx

Is the specifications for the chipset/IGP. I'll highlight the below for you...

It was a integrated card with an option for either system memory, or dedicated and system memory. So I assure you that not all integrated cards steal from the system memory. Most, but not all.

 

This guy seems to know what he's actually talking about!

 

Seen this?

 

That article neglects the advantages of switchable graphics for battery life, which means the 13" MBP could've had discrete graphics without a sacrifice in that area.
However, they have some nice images of the MBP PCBs, which show that having an additional GPU in the 13" would not have been trivial.

I'd say that cost was undoubtedly the main reason.

 

Just how much better is the i3 than the P8600?

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

I see 2 mobile i3 processors listed. The #39 i3's benchmarks don't seem much better than the P8600 listed at #44.

 

No. A Core i3-330M has architecture upgrades, plus it is more power efficient and has the help of hyper-threading.

 

@zeth

Never go by notebookcheck's rank order. It's in rough order of speed, but it's not precise. Instead, go by actual benchmark results.

 

Meh. I normally jump up and down when performance improvements are substantial.

 

Hmmm, I don't have any plans to do any high performance computing on my laptop. A few % points of performance decline I'll let slide for now.

 

Yeah, I figured that some time ago. I was suspicious about the inconsistencies between ranks and actual benchmark points.


That's why I made my own table breakdown. Against both i3's, the P8700 actually scored better. It lost against both i3's in Cinebench R10 Rendering Multi and 3DMark06 CPU. In Cine R10 Rendering Multi, the i3's showed improvement by about 13-18%. The P8700 got knocked out by 4-11% on 3D Mark06. The i3-330m registered 4% higher points for SuperPI 32M.


Conclusion? The i3 is definitely better for multithreaded applications. But for what I'm using it for, the P8600 isn't much of a decline. For single-core apps, it's actually an improvement despite being based off of an older architecture.

Verdict: Doesn't matter much to me. I'll accept the CPU. FWIW it won't make me lose sleep.

 

Forgive me if this was posted already but this is quite an interesting read:

Why the 13" MacBook Pro didn't get a Core i5 upgrade

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...a-core-i5-upgrade.ars?comments=1#comments-bar

Most of the points covered in the article were discussed in this thread however.

 

Yeah, that was posted on the previous page.
My response:

 

I've been looking for a computer to buy for the last month and a half.

Ideally I'd like the following:

11 inches 720p screen
1 inch think no optical drive
dual core of some sort
9400m or better graphics
250gb+ hd
hdmi out
3-3.5lbs

Basically take an HP mini 311 and put a core 2 duo culv and I'd be happy.

Unfortunately no such notebook exists, all of the graphics solutions suck hard core. Thus the next logical step is to look at 13 inch laptops. At that point imo the best pc solution seems to be an HP DM3t with sp9300 and geforce 105m.

However, I really love the 13 inch mbp. The design and build quality are great, it's one inch thin and includes an optical drive, with a lot of battery life as well - Phenominal. However i'm really dissapointed there's no core i5 processor. I wouldn't mind buying a core 2 duo machine with 9400m for $800 but I can't justify it at $1200.

I'll just have to wait, the machine with perfect specs does not exist for me yet.

I'd buy the vaio z, but I want an HD not an over priced under spaced SSD. What the hell was sony thinking? Give me a HD option and then I'll consider buying it.

My complaints about the mbp:

No HDMI, no audio over displayport due to apple not suporting it ( ?)
5400 rpm HDs default (really? why ?)
Small HD space by default as well

My complaints about Pcs in general:

Not one matches the build quality/design of MBP
No slot loaded optical drives
Why in hell is there not an 11 inch metal construction dual core machine with good IGP or a gerfoce 210 or 310m?

 

MacConnection has it for $1,049 after a $100 rebate.


But even then, it doesn't have HDMI. You'd need a displayport to HDMI cord.

 

Oh, but there IS. Metal chassis with plastic covering. CULV 1.3GHz processor with a BIOS option to overclock to 1.73GHz (without voiding the warranty). nVidia 335M dedicated graphics with an Intel GMA4500HD for low power mode, switchable either way in 2 seconds. 1366x768 screen, 11".

The Alienware M11x. And you can get it for $800. It IS actually about 4.5lbs, and a bit thicker than an inch, but they've stuck a GPU more powerful than that in a MacBook Pro 15/17" into an 11" form factor, so it needs good cooling. (Which it has; the cooling on it is absolutely phenominal) HDMI output? Yes. 250GB+ hard drive? Yes, and in 7200RPM. (You can choose what size drive you want in the customisation) AND, it can go for up to 8 hours on battery in low power, up to 4 hours on dedicated graphics, or at minimum 2 hours when fully loaded.

(If you do decide to get one, don't bother with the higher 7300 processor, go with the 4100. All the 7300 has over it is an extra 1MB in cache size giving about a 2% performance boost.)

 

The best news of all is that Apple is in discussions with ATI to address its needs in the future.

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/18509/1/

Maybe the next 13" refresh will be something to pay attention to.

Bronsky

 

My 2 cents is that Apple might be interested in AMD's upcoming Fusion. In which case, it certainly WOULD be something to pay attention to.

 

The M11x is a very nice subnotebook but I would like to see a CULV/GPU combination in a thinner and lighter 11.6". Morelike my Acer 1410Tor the 1810T. I think either an CoreI/Ion 2 combination with Optimus or the apple CULV/320M integrated GPU. I think the 1MB/Ion 2 would be the best solution becaue of Optimus and the better battery power. If you went with a CULV like the SU7300 and an Ion 2 (310M) would there be any need for Optimus (no switchable graphics were there is no integrated option?) or will optimus still work to turn the GPU on and off, drawing power only when it is needed?

Bronsky

 

There are three reasons for it being so thick and heavy; firstly the M11x does have a metal chassis underneath the plastic, seondly it does have a very large battery (8 cell) which does add weight and bulk onto it, thirdly because the 335M is a very potent chip, it does need a (relatively) large heatsink to cool it effectively.

All considering, it is still a very small and light notebook, delivering exceptional performance. No other sub-13" notebook is capable of playing Crysis smoothly at all, let alone playing it smoothly on Medium. The whole point of it, really, is that exceptional graphics processor in such a small platform-it is essentially designed for the most part for gaming on the go. It is Alienware after all.

I think the 310M IS an integrated chip anyway. The 320M is just a more powerful version that Apple asked nVidia to make. That's my understanding of it, anyway. That plus a CULV would certainly be a VERY nice combination in an 11.6" platform for the average user, although I wouldn't try anything more than light gaming on it-the 310/320M is still a relatively weak chip.

 

It could just be a way to leverage bargaining power with Nvidia.

But then again ATI is working on a switchable graphics solution. Who knows?

 

Partially correct. Now we're now learning Nvidia didn't design the 320M 100%. Apple hired some former AMD employees to do some of the design tweaking on it.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1601521/apple-shafts-nvidia-amd-employees

 

Now maybe AMD should hire them back to design autoswitching for ATI cards on Intel or AMD systems much like Optimus.

Bronsky

 

Uh, I don't think Apple designed their own NVidia chips...I think they wrote their own drivers to do what Optimus does since it appears to be a Windows specific solution. As nice as it is to dream that Apple has anywhere near the expertise to design their own graphics cards, its far more likely they needed their own solution b/c NVidia either wasn't up to the task or Apple wanted greater integration with their OS.

From the Optimus whitepaper:
"NVIDIA Optimus Technology delivers great battery life and great performance, in a way that simply works. It automatically and instantaneously uses the best tool for the job – the high performance NVIDIA GPU for GPU-Compute applications, video, and 3D games; and low power integrated graphics for applications like Office, Web surfing, or email.
The result is long lasting battery life without sacrificing great graphics performance, delivering an experience that is fully automatic and behind the scenes.
When the GPU can provide an increase in performance, functionality, or quality over the IGP for an application, the NVIDIA driver will enable the GPU. When the user launches an application, the NVIDIA driver will recognize whether the application being run can benefit from using the GPU. If the application can benefit from running on the GPU, the GPU is powered up from an idle state and is given all rendering calls.
Using NVIDIA‟s Optimus technology, when the discrete GPU is handling all the rendering duties, the final image output to the display is still handled by the Intel integrated graphics processor (IGP). In effect, the IGP is only being used as a simple display controller, resulting in a seamless, flicker-free experience with no need to reboot.
When less critical or less demanding applications are run, the discrete GPU is powered off and the Intel IGP handles both rendering and display calls to conserve power and provide the highest possible battery life.
The beauty of Optimus is that it leverages standard industry protocols and APIs to work. From relying on standard Microsoft APIs when communicating with the Intel IGP driver, to utilizing the PCI-Express bus to transfer the GPU‟s output to the Intel IGP, there are no proprietary hoops to jump through. NVIDIA‟s new hardware and software design seamlessly blends into the existing frameworks."

 

I neither stated or implied Apple designs its own chips. From what articles I gathered, the Nvidia 320M is an Nvidia GPU altered to Apple's specific settings using the skills and knowledge of former AMD engineers. Your copy/paste doesn't reveal a whole lot and Nvidia's been quoted as saying the 320M isn't exactly identical to Nvidia Optimus. The premise is rather misplaced, no?

If you have any relevant info, that would be helpful.

 

You stated that NVidia didn't design the 320M 100% and I was commenting on the fact that it's likely a completely stock piece of silicon from NVidia but that Apple wrote their own Optimus like technology into the drivers. Even w/ Apple's volume an actual custom chip would be cost prohibitive. Clocking a chip up/down and swapping memory doesn't really change the silicon and every manufacturer down to the whitebox manufacturers can probably get their chips tweaked at that level.

My copy/paste is just listing the fact that NVidia designed Optimus (software/driver solution w/ supporting hardware) around Microsoft API's which most likely are not present on Mac OS X. Any auto-switching technology not written by NVidia specifically for the MBP would then have to be written by Apple which appears to be the case.

If I order a BMW and pick the twin turbo engine option...I didn't build the engine. Even if I tweak it and crank up the boost it, it's still a BMW designed engine.

On a side note, I don't think the 320M does any auto switching.
MBP Specs:
"The 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pro models come standard with automatic graphics switching. It’s a breakthrough technology from Apple that switches graphics processors on the fly to give you performance when you need it (when you’re playing the latest 3D game, for example) and better battery efficiency when you don’t (such as when you’re reading email). MacBook Pro transfers the workload between the powerful discrete NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M graphics processor and integrated Intel HD Graphics so seamlessly, you won’t even notice. Whether you’re using applications like Aperture, Motion, or Final Cut Pro or just surfing the web, your MacBook Pro always knows which processor to use. You don’t have to log out, shut down, or change your preferences. Automatic graphics switching does it all for you."

 

Apple's switching is quite unlike Optimus, and much more like previous switchable graphics solutions, in that it uses proprietary hardware to achieve switching. Sure, it's automatic, but it still uses a hardware multiplexer. They might have gotten around previous issues like screen flicker and blocking programs, but I wouldn't be certain.
Plus, you'll have to rely on Apple to release Windows drivers for their switchable graphics.

 

You're banking off of ambiguity within one term out of my entire comment and in doing so, you're just missing the whole point. Copying/pasting content that's not really new accomplishes little. If anything your comment doesn't conflict with mine really. It all boils down to the difference between stating what's been said and being a Capt. Obvious.

The hardware was based off of Nvidia's very own graphics technology. Nowhere in my comment did I state otherwise. But Apple and its cohort of AMD defectors had a hand in altering the card, hence my more general use of the "design" when I said they had a part in changing the way the GPU performs its function. Nvidia in this respect was not responsible. If you're somehow offended that I used that word, I will gladly attempt to amend my sentence and future sentences so I can avoid using this 6-letter bad word and others, capiche? I'd rather not turn this into a senseless flame war.

But if you're having a hard time avoiding looking too much into single terms and their multiplicity of uses, I can recommend a very good book to work on that.


Relax, brah. I'm not an Apple fanboy. I just enjoy reading up on related topics from time to time.

 

It looks to me like the card is still entirely Nvidia's work. Apple just put in the usual hardware multiplexer, and made their own drivers.

 

I'm personally just a bit concerned about other articles I've read attesting to the differences between Apple's and Nvidia's methods. Last I heard, Nvidia's Optimus graphics had a bad habit of allowing power to run through the integrated GPU even when the dedicated GPU was supposed to be running tasks.

 

what does optimus have to do with the Macbook Pro 13?

The Macbook 15 and 17 have intel graphics and automatic graphics switching thats like optimus... there is nothing like that on the 13.

 

Perhaps we should make a new thread about Apple's switchable graphics?

It's not so much a bad habit as a necessary evil. In order to eliminate the need for a proprietary hardware multiplexer, the discrete GPU outputs its signal to the IGP framebuffer in system memory, and the IGP outputs this to the screen. This would use more power, though hopefully the IGP would be kept in a relatively low power state when it's not doing the rendering. In any case the important thing is that both solutions power down the dGPU when using the IGP, which is far more important since that's how you'll spend most of your time on battery.

I'm also not sure about how Apple's solution is with regards to previous issues like delays, flickering and blocking programs. Perhaps they really have done a good job in that area, and if so Apple deserves real credit there.

However, I think the downside to Apple's approach is too big to ignore - their solution is entirely proprietary, and you're completely stuck with Apple for drivers. That trouble with proprietary solutions is exactly why there's a huge thread in the Sony subforum dedicated to hybrid graphics drivers for the VAIO Z. With Apple, the problem is even greater, because at the moment Apple hasn't even released switchable graphics drivers for Windows - if you want to run Windows on your MBP, you're stuck with having the discrete graphics on the whole time.

 

Some of us just got bored and started discussing Optimus. I guess that's what happens when a heated arguments as to why Apple stuck with a Core 2 and whether Steve Jobs was an insidious megalomaniac get old.

 

Why would you buy a Mac as a primary Windows machine? You already should know your not going to have all features available in Windows... as for OSX, we already are dependent on Apple for drivers.

The majority of people who use Bootcamp to run Windows do so for games... and with gaming, you want the discrete GPU. If you want to run Windows just to run Windows... I don't think I'd spend the money to buy a Mac if I needed Windows that much.

 

Considering this is the wrong place, I'll make a new thread for Apple's switchable graphics.

 

The only reason I can foresee needing to run Windows is to run VMWare for OneNote. I've searched and searched for a competent competitor. But few Mac users disagree it's simply one of the best programs for taking notes!

I'm sure that people with more demanding needs that include utilizing Windows-only corporate software might have better justification. I hear mixed reviews of Crossover so it's down to VMWare and Parallels.

 

If there isn't one already, that's good timing.

 

there are mixed reviews of every product available... why discount something because of some reviews? Wine (including Crossover) can run MS OneNote.... if you really have to have that.