Upgrading a MacBook Pro to a MacBook Pro

I usually by a new notebook every year and about 1 year ago I bought the MacBook Pro 17". Now, one year later....is it worth buying a new MacBook Pro 17" with current specs compared to the one 1 year ago? As a company customer, money really isn't a problem, but of course, just paying for a marginal change is of course a waste of money (and time). A quick glance doesn't seem to indicate that there is all that much change, but I could be wrong.

Need: A powerfull laptop for serious software development with good CPU, RAM and disc(s). If it has a nice GPU that is a bonus I wouldn't mind paying for.

/pJ

 

The latest MacBook Pro features an NVidia 8600m GT graphics processor with 256MB of GDDR3 VRAM, which is a set up from the ATI Radeon x1600 featured in the previous MBP revision.

It's possible that sometime in January or later the MBP will be updated with a quad-core processor. So it's worth holding out another few months, since another MBP revision should be coming soon.

 

The big differences between the old generation and new generation 17-inch MBPs are really the graphics card (ATI Radeon X1600 -> NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT) and higher resolution option on the new 17-inch MBP (you can select to 1920x1200). Personally, I'd say there's not enough change to warrant an update from just last year's MBP.

 

When/If I upgrade my Macbook to a MBP I'm more worried about all the accessories such as sleeves etc. that are going to go to waste.

 

Quad-core? Where did you hear that? That would probably raise the cost by a lot, not to mention heat and power consumption.

Actually, just the upgraded resolution is reason enough for me. Then factor in the graphics card and it's a no brainer, well for me at least. But, at $800 more than the low end mbp, it's still a stretch for me.

 

"Penryn will also be released in a quad-core version for desktop replacement notebooks."

"Intel has announced its new 45nm Penryn-based Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors will be released on January 6, 2008. The new processors will launch exclusively with a 35W thermal envelope. The new processors are slated to be unveiled further at MacWorld 2008 as part of Apple's mobile lineup"

http://www.dailytech.com/Intels+Penryn+Mobile+Processor+Schedule+Revealed/article9893.htm

I suppose it's a stretch, but there is a slight possibility that there will be a quad-core MacBook Pro coming soon. If this person truly desires processing power, it's best he wait until MacWorld to see whether or not a quad-core MacBook Pro is coming or not. Even if a quad-core processor isn't coming, the Penryn chipset is a worthwhile upgrade. He could skip the Santa Rosa platform all together.

 

i dont know. Santa rosa is still pretty fast to me. But yeah if you want to wait for a quad core then go right ahead.

 

If you want as close to desktop power as possible, wait a month for Macworld. I believe you will find a good reason to uprade then.

 

Actually just 15 days.

 

An upgrade now may not be worth the money or trouble. Late January may see a fatser processor, and May/June may see a new mobile computing platform.

 

drools. that would be so amazing.

 

that article you linked says nothing about quad core chips. I remember reading that intel is holding back the quad core chips partly because amd is so far behind and partly because they want to work on them more. therefore quad core chips are not coming out for a while, especially not january.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_2#Penryn

Unfortunately there's no link to any article, but I'd say it's possible. There's been lots of talk about bringing a quad-core mobile processor to the market. We missed it with Napa and with Santa Rosa, hopefully Penryn will be the platform that'll at least have it as an option. It shouldn't run much hotter than a standard dual-core. My parents desktop is using a quad-core processor and it's always cool. So one would think it'd be possible to put a quad-core in a MBP. After all, they put the T7700 and T7800 in an MBP and they were considered state-of-the-art, minus the extreme edition X7900.

 

I wouldn't hold out for a quad core in a MacBook Pro anytime soon. Intel has no plans to make mainstream mobile quad cores and looking at the thermal envelopes, it's doubtful they could do it even if they wanted to. The last I heard, the planned mobile quad core will be a Penryn based one due out in Q3 and will only be available as a mobile Core 2 Extreme. Apple has never used a Core 2 Extreme in their notebooks and it's doubtful that they would start since those have a TDP in the 40W range and Apple has used TDPs in the 30W range as their maximum even in the PowerBook days.

By the time the mobile Core 2 Extreme quad core arrives in Q3, the focus will already be on the upcoming Nehalem architecture chips coming in Q4. And even with Nehalem, it is unlikely there will be mainstream mobile quad cores since they will still use the 45nm process and the thermal room from the maturing process will be used keeping the more complex chip in line. Besides, Nehalem will feature the return of Hyperthreading allowing the processing of 4 threads on a dual core, which could be a good power-efficient alternative to quad cores in the mainstream mobile market if it's implemented properly. Which the lack of the replay loop of the Netburst architecture, the wider decode and more execution units over Netburst, the larger caches and possibility of using Smart Cache to prevent cache thrashing, the increased bandwidth from CSI, and the ability to dynamically activate or deactivate Hyperthreading for troubled programs or to save power, Nehalem's version of Hyperthreading should be better than Prescott's.