PDA

View Full Version : Faster MacBooks



lonerider
02-14-2006, 03:42 PM
http://news.com.com/Apple+ships+MacBook+Pro+with+speedier+chips/2100-1044_3-6039263.html

"Two models were originally announced--one for $1,999 with Intel's 1.67GHz Core Duo processor and one for $2,499 with Intel's 1.83GHz processor. Apple will now include a 1.83GHz processor with the $1,999 system, and the $2,499 system will come with Intel's 2GHz Core Duo processor, Moody said. Customers will also be able to select a 2.16GHz processor for the $2,499 system for an additional $300, according to Apple's Web site."

timswim78
02-14-2006, 04:27 PM
http://news.com.com/Apple+ships+MacBook+Pro+with+speedier+chips/2100-1044_3-6039263.html

"Two models were originally announced--one for $1,999 with Intel's 1.67GHz Core Duo processor and one for $2,499 with Intel's 1.83GHz processor. Apple will now include a 1.83GHz processor with the $1,999 system, and the $2,499 system will come with Intel's 2GHz Core Duo processor, Moody said. Customers will also be able to select a 2.16GHz processor for the $2,499 system for an additional $300, according to Apple's Web site."

I was wondering why the MBP originally only came with a 1.83ghz CPU, when the Acer 8200 is running the 2Ghz model. I'm glad to see that Apple upgrade this.

Benjamindaines
02-14-2006, 05:22 PM
We will be seeing a lot of this now that Apple is using the same processors as almost everyone else...

Bigrk
02-14-2006, 07:47 PM
cool. I think this is tight

EDIT-XTREEM
02-14-2006, 07:52 PM
So the mac book pro is now faster than the imac?!!!

dr427
02-14-2006, 07:57 PM
Now if someone could actually get one in their hands....

EDIT-XTREEM
02-14-2006, 08:26 PM
Now if someone could actually get one in their hands....
2.13 ghz.. i wish the shipping was that fast!

to_tough_to_die
02-14-2006, 08:55 PM
So the mac book pro is now faster than the imac?!!!

It should be.


It's a freaking Pro-level laptop, the consumer-level machine doesn't need the power.

I love my Powerbook, but considering that it cost nearly twice what an iMac did (with a larger display, larger harddrive, and a processor faster in gigahertz (spelling) and a more efficient processor (G5)) it killed me, but I needed a laptop.

smeshy123
02-14-2006, 09:02 PM
I played with the new iMac intel comps this weekend...they are amazing...I want one of these laptops...SOO FAST...

ByzantineRemnant
02-14-2006, 09:55 PM
It will not be as fast, or faster. The iMac is has a faster HD, for its made for desktops. That being said however, you could buy a 7200rpm HD for the MacBook. This is interesting.

ByzantineRemnant
02-14-2006, 10:11 PM
Ok, after looking on Apple's site, it costs $270 to make the 2.0ghz processor a 2.16ghz processor...I still think the iMac is a much better deal, even if its not as portable...

to_tough_to_die
02-14-2006, 10:17 PM
It will not be as fast, or faster. The iMac is has a faster HD, for its made for desktops. That being said however, you could buy a 7200rpm HD for the MacBook. This is interesting.

Harddrive speed is overrated. While accesing files fast is a nice feature, I'd trade it for a faster processor any day.

PowerBookG4
02-14-2006, 11:29 PM
I want a macbook pro so bad right now, I just have no money.

Discerptor
02-15-2006, 09:17 PM
I want a macbook pro so bad right now, I just have no money.
But you already have a relatively recent PowerBook, don't you? I'm actually interested in seeing the Macbook Pros for myself so I can see how fast they really are compared to the powerBooks. I'm skeptical about "4-5X faster."

Also, on a side note, are you sure your listed specs are correct? I thought you had to upgrade to the 1.67 GHz processor in the 15-incher to get the 128MB of video RAM.

PowerBookG4
02-15-2006, 09:32 PM
i have a 1.5 ghz powerbook.. no i did not upgrade.. sorry.. i wish I did ;)
I also have a powermac quad with a 23inch screen so that is what I use when i need the power.. but the macbook seams like its an amazing computer for on the road.. so thinking about selling my powerbook maybe to trade up.. once I get a little more cash.. i don't know how much I could get for this system, but I do know that I only have $330 to my name right now and can't work that much because of high school so I will have to save up for a little longer before I sell this machine away for the macbook. (I just rather have final cut running at a higher speed when i edit in the car when i have to do road work although final cut pro won't be universal 'till march)

lonerider
02-16-2006, 04:09 PM
Harddrive speed is overrated. While accesing files fast is a nice feature, I'd trade it for a faster processor any day.

No way. Unless you're playing a video game, hard drive speed is far more important than CPU speed - especially when you are talking about a paltry 8% in core CPU speed vs a 33% bump in drive speed. Even if you are talking about doing a lot of encoding or ripping, the hard drive can make a bigger difference as the system has to read and write a fair bit during those processes.

These processors are really close, I'd say get RAM first, the 7200RPM drive second, and the faster CPU last.

ByzantineRemnant
02-16-2006, 07:25 PM
^You are dead on accurate my friend. You could buy so much more ram with that extra $300 for a .16ghz boost. The MacBook Pro is nice, but I have opted to buy an iMac desktop and keep my iBook for on the go. You get much more in the iMac for less money, and i dont have to worry about lugging around a $2500 laptop with me, I can take my trusty iBook along.

ByzantineRemnant
02-16-2006, 07:32 PM
Has anyone noticed how on apple's site they dont tell you what speed the superdrive is in the MacBook Pro? Its also pretty interesting that its not DL, where as the 15" PB is. The PB also says in plain english that its 8x...

ByzantineRemnant
02-16-2006, 07:37 PM
The proccessor speeds have been increased, yet the statement 4x faster stays the same. I get a bad vibe from the MacBook Pro...

to_tough_to_die
02-16-2006, 08:00 PM
Has anyone noticed how on apple's site they dont tell you what speed the superdrive is in the MacBook Pro? Its also pretty interesting that its not DL, where as the 15" PB is. The PB also says in plain english that its 8x...

They cut off a whole 1/10th of an inch! Who cares if they don't have dual-layer or 8x burning?

EDIT: And lonerider, as for the compairson, I was just commenting on overall. I don't think the 160 mhz bump is worth $300, but I still stand by my opinion.

zap2
02-16-2006, 08:00 PM
The proccessor speeds have been increased, yet the statement 4x faster stays the same. I get a bad vibe from the MacBook Pro...


the difference bewteen 160Mhz is not making a Mac much faster(at least not when ur doing it by time the speed of the PowerBook_

PowerBookG4
02-16-2006, 08:33 PM
and the 4x faster is an advertisement not a specification of any kind..

ByzantineRemnant
02-17-2006, 12:03 AM
I also noticed that even though the video card is infact the same in the iMac and the Mac Book Pro, it is named differently when you look on apple's site. The "mobility" part is removed when its listed on the iMac, hoping people will forget it has a notebook video card in it? Im becoming cynical at the way Apple advertises things on their site, as well as how they want $180 more for an additional 40gigs of HD space on the MacBook.

Discerptor
02-17-2006, 12:14 AM
I also noticed that even though the video card is infact the same in the iMac and the Mac Book Pro, it is named differently when you look on apple's site. The "mobility" part is removed when its listed on the iMac, hoping people will forget it has a notebook video card in it? Im becoming cynical at the way Apple advertises things on their site, as well as how they want $180 more for an additional 40gigs of HD space on the MacBook.
No, the Radeon X1600 and the Mobility Radeon X1600 are actually two different names for two different products by ATI. The Mobility version is obviously smaller than the non-Mobility version, and it has a reduced clockspeed so that it generates less heat and is more efficient with power consumption. And a 120GB hard drive in a notebook is HUGE at the moment. It's the same reason the upgrade to 2.16 GHz is so disproportionately large; it happens to be some of the absolute latest stuff out there. That price is there for a reason.

ByzantineRemnant
02-17-2006, 02:07 AM
^Where are your sources for the difference in the two cards? 120gig in notebook may be huge, I wasnt talking about the size it self, I was talking about the difference warranting a price increase of $180. I do agree that this is pretty cutting edge stuff, it just frustrates me that we have to wait for something more affordable. The iBooks use G4's also and they are in need of an update. I imagine it will all unfold in the next few months. I just need something soon here, so Im looking at whats on the market now. We can only speculate about 13.3 iBooks so much...

ByzantineRemnant
02-17-2006, 02:34 AM
SO when could we expect a DL drive in the MacBook Pro.

Discerptor
02-17-2006, 04:01 AM
^Where are your sources for the difference in the two cards? 120gig in notebook may be huge, I wasnt talking about the size it self, I was talking about the difference warranting a price increase of $180. I do agree that this is pretty cutting edge stuff, it just frustrates me that we have to wait for something more affordable. The iBooks use G4's also and they are in need of an update. I imagine it will all unfold in the next few months. I just need something soon here, so Im looking at whats on the market now. We can only speculate about 13.3 iBooks so much...
That's ALWAYS the difference between a full version and a "Go" or "Mobility" version of a graphics card. This has been understood for years.

And I'm not saying a 40GB difference warrants a $180 price increase, but a 0.16 GHz clockspeed boost doesn't warrant a $300 price bump either. You're paying for having the latest and greatest at that point, not for the actual performance increase you get.

ByzantineRemnant
02-17-2006, 03:40 PM
^So you dont have sources, you are just assuming? How many desktop PC's use the same processor as a notebook? How many HP desktops have Centrino mobile processors in them? Have you seen the size of the iMac? Do you honestly believe it has a full size desktop video card in it? It doesnt puzzle you that the card is labeled exactly the same, minus the mobility part for the iMac? How often does ATI release a card for both desktops and notebooks with the exact same name and memory options? I think if we look at the facts, and not a general assumption, it would make sense that the video cards are the same. If you, or anyone can prove me wrong, please do. I wouldnt mind it actually, Id like to think that the iMac has a better video card. The iMac form factor needs to be taken into consideration, you are not talking about an ATX case PC or a PowerMac. I need Amen-Moses to clear this mess up for me.

Discerptor
02-17-2006, 09:48 PM
^So you dont have sources, you are just assuming? How many desktop PC's use the same processor as a notebook? How many HP desktops have Centrino mobile processors in them? Have you seen the size of the iMac? Do you honestly believe it has a full size desktop video card in it? It doesnt puzzle you that the card is labeled exactly the same, minus the mobility part for the iMac? How often does ATI release a card for both desktops and notebooks with the exact same name and memory options? I think if we look at the facts, and not a general assumption, it would make sense that the video cards are the same. If you, or anyone can prove me wrong, please do. I wouldnt mind it actually, Id like to think that the iMac has a better video card. The iMac form factor needs to be taken into consideration, you are not talking about an ATX case PC or a PowerMac. I need Amen-Moses to clear this mess up for me.

http://www.ati.com/products/RadeonX1600/index.html

http://www.ati.com/products/MobilityRadeonx1600/index.html

Two different pages for two different products. You navigate to one by looking at "Gaming" under Products and the other by looking at "Notebook" under products. And ATI and NVIDIA both do everything you asked all the time, and there's your proof. Look at how many "Mobility" versions of their graphics cards they have on the website. The desktop version certainly isn't terribly far from the notebook version (though there definitely IS a difference), but Apple certainly didn't just stick the Mobility Radeon X1600 in the iMac or they wouldn't have said they put the Radeon X1600 in there; they would have actually said which product was in the machine so as to, how do you say, not get sued blind and prosecuted for false advertisement. The difference here is that the Mobility radeon X1600 is ATI's latest in mobile graphics solutions, whereas the desktop Radeon X1600 series is not their latest desktop video card.

BlindingLights
02-18-2006, 06:43 PM
Trust me, you don't need a laptop. I just picked up my iMac (would have gotten the macbook pro but couldn't due to money), and it works FINE. It's SUPER fast. It's all you really need.

Plus, the iMac looks better ;-D

maddog39
02-18-2006, 10:03 PM
Eh... I am continuously getting the impression that those intel chips really blow. But I geuss if you guys say really good things about them then they are really good. However, it still bothers me that intel is selling these chips to other companies and putting them in windows computers.

pbook24
02-20-2006, 02:23 PM
WOW,macs will never be considered fast, get over it guys. the fastest macs will always obv. be the powermacs, but even those are not even close to as fast as they should be for that price. I was a pc user, then got a powerbook, now have just finished building a gaming pc. the funny thing is that i built my pc all included for 1800 dollars(yes, monitor too) and it would own the g5 quad just about any day.

deus_ex_machina
02-20-2006, 02:31 PM
WOW,macs will never be considered fast, get over it guys. the fastest macs will always obv. be the powermacs, but even those are not even close to as fast as they should be for that price. I was a pc user, then got a powerbook, now have just finished building a gaming pc. the funny thing is that i built my pc all included for 1800 dollars(yes, monitor too) and it would own the g5 quad just about any day.

in gaming, yeah. That's not what they're intended for. That's why most gamers here couple a PC game machine with their Macs

apple_power
02-20-2006, 04:28 PM
WOW,macs will never be considered fast, get over it guys. the fastest macs will always obv. be the powermacs, but even those are not even close to as fast as they should be for that price. I was a pc user, then got a powerbook, now have just finished building a gaming pc. the funny thing is that i built my pc all included for 1800 dollars(yes, monitor too) and it would own the g5 quad just about any day.


Really do you own a quad G5? Have you tried it with a nice size of ram and compared photoshop and a few other programms. The G5 excels and will beat any pc whilst running hungry resource appliactions.

You dont buy a mac for gaming period, youu but it for its beauty, and the fact that it works and gives you maximum up time. It is not about speed in my work but about maximum up time.

nrivas
02-20-2006, 07:23 PM
Eh... I am continuously getting the impression that those intel chips really blow. But I geuss if you guys say really good things about them then they are really good. However, it still bothers me that intel is selling these chips to other companies and putting them in windows computers.


Intel isn't Microsoft. Can't blame the chipmaker for faulty software. And selling to other companies? Simple reason: They don't want to lose market share. They'd go out of business.

I think a lot of people don't understand the key advantage of dual core: multi-tasking. You'll see a big difference when doing two tasks at one time (ie. encoding video and surfing web/emails at the same time).

My only rant is: The Intel chips are always getting faster and better at a pretty fast pace. Most PC users have to upgrade after 1-2 years. Will Mac users have to do the same? I have a 3yr old iBook that still runs Tiger and Photoshop just fine. My 3yr old PC on the other hand can use an upgrade.

Meyvn
02-20-2006, 07:33 PM
My three and a half year old PC runs XP SP2 beautifully on 512 MB RAM, and it wasn't even top of the line at the time. Athlon XP 2100, 1.6 GHz.

ByzantineRemnant
02-20-2006, 08:26 PM
^Lol, thats an AMD chip.

PowerBookG4
02-20-2006, 08:57 PM
WOW,macs will never be considered fast, get over it guys. the fastest macs will always obv. be the powermacs, but even those are not even close to as fast as they should be for that price. I was a pc user, then got a powerbook, now have just finished building a gaming pc. the funny thing is that i built my pc all included for 1800 dollars(yes, monitor too) and it would own the g5 quad just about any day.

Trust me, I have the quad with 4 gigs of ram.. total price 7,000, and that is with a 23 inch screen.. It can't be touched by a computer that cost 1800 all included..

Benjamindaines
02-20-2006, 09:03 PM
WOW,macs will never be considered fast, get over it guys. the fastest macs will always obv. be the powermacs, but even those are not even close to as fast as they should be for that price. I was a pc user, then got a powerbook, now have just finished building a gaming pc. the funny thing is that i built my pc all included for 1800 dollars(yes, monitor too) and it would own the g5 quad just about any day.
I have a dual 2.5GHz G5 with 2GB memory, and I'm 400% sure it could crush your $1800 PC.

to_tough_to_die
02-20-2006, 10:55 PM
WOW,macs will never be considered fast, get over it guys. the fastest macs will always obv. be the powermacs, but even those are not even close to as fast as they should be for that price. I was a pc user, then got a powerbook, now have just finished building a gaming pc. the funny thing is that i built my pc all included for 1800 dollars(yes, monitor too) and it would own the g5 quad just about any day.

You obviously don't get it...

As a gamer, you of all people should know that RAW GIGAHERTZ HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

Bus speeds, RAM, harddrive speeds/ capacity, graphics, THAT is the stuff that makes the difference in performance.

Benjamindaines
02-20-2006, 10:59 PM
You obviously don't get it...

As a gamer, you of all people should know that RAW GIGAHERTZ HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

Bus speeds, RAM, harddrive speeds/ capacity, graphics, THAT is the stuff that makes the difference in performance.
Ok, lets stop flaming this guy. He's probably never going to come back now.

Discerptor
02-21-2006, 02:13 AM
Ok, lets stop flaming this guy. He's probably never going to come back now.
Good. :)

apple_power
02-21-2006, 03:02 AM
Come on then lets get my quad G5 out with its 8gigs ram and put it to the test, against your $1800system.

Facts taht you will never beat, your machine will never look as good as mine, nor is it an apple. Sorry pal. I guess I am just a mac geek. lol

Bring it

Or maybe you want try against my Fx faming platform?

ByzantineRemnant
02-21-2006, 04:01 AM
Does anyone else find it funny that this thread orginated talking about MacBooks? Now we are arguing whether or not a $6000 PowerMac is faster than an $1800 PC. Oh dear...

Pierre
02-21-2006, 09:08 AM
Does anyone else find it funny that this thread orginated talking about MacBooks? Now we are arguing whether or not a $6000 PowerMac is faster than an $1800 PC. Oh dear...

Indeed. These posts are for the digg comments section not here. Get a life kiddos.