Apple Updates MacBook Pro Line for 2011 Discussion

For those who haven't already heard the news, Apple has officially revealed its new MacBook Pro family with the latest Intel Sandy Bridge Core i5 and Core i7 processors, AMD Radeon graphics and the latest high-speed data port: Thunderbolt. In short, it's time to buy a new MacBook!

Read the full content of this Article: Apple Updates MacBook Pro Line for 2011

Related Articles:

• Apple MacBook Air (11.6-inch) Review
• Apple 15-inch MacBook Pro (mid 2009) User Review
• Apple 13-inch MacBook Pro Review

 

The GPU on the $1800 15" model actually got a slight downgrade from what it was in the previous generation (the 6490M will have more memory bandwidth than the 330M, but less processing power -- it is at best even). The $2200 15-incher looks good, but wow, that's an even greater markup than I expected from Apple: the hardware can't be worth more than half of that.

 

Are these the first laptops out with the thunderbolt port on it?

 

Quite interesting the dual-GPU option; integrated video (Intel Sandy Bridge) for low demand, AMD Radeon for high demand!

I cannot wait for a Macbook Air with the Second Generation Core i3 low power consumption version.

 

Try looking elswhere for a laptop with a Radeon HD6750M (heck, a Radeon 6650M even) w/ similar build+screen quality and report back. Okay, I'd be fair and save you the trouble... you would'nt find a laptop that even compares. The hard drive for the retail model is a little lacking though, 5400RPM ouch.

BTW since when were mobile Sandy Bridge Core i7 processors quad-core? Am I missing something here?

 

since they came out. SB i7 2630QM, 2720QM, 2820QM, 2920XM. With hyperthreading they simulate 8 cores too. Although there are dual-core i7s.

 

I was hoping to see a 13" with a nice graphic card to play at least with 30fps and very low settings Crysis 2 and BF3 ... but I guess this dream is busted

Two years ago I spend 2k for my Alien and now 2k again for the 15" with the HD 6750M??? .... I am not too sure about that...

I am no more "up to date" with all this new hardware^^ but I just can't see the 6490M with 256 MB GDDR5 justify the extra costs (okay i7 quad...) and make me happy ...
low gaming or real gaming ... there is nothing in between (my Opinion )

Do you guys see the 13 as capable of low gaming or NO gaming (NO Crysis 2 NO BF3...)?

It's quite a long time ago that I was posting here in english and I am feeling not that comfortable anymore, so I hope you still understand me

greetings
Julian

 

Wow, this awesomeness just might convert me from an EliteBook fanboy, to an Apple user. I still don't like the company or the OS at all, though.

Now, if only I could add the Envy's 3D display and a touchpad that can actually right click*, it'd be awesome. And then I'd add a PCIe Xonar sound card.

* It is impossible to right CLICK on a Magic Trackpad... all you can do is right RELEASE. Pressing and holding the right edge does literally nothing! Then when you let go, it gives a button down and a button up. A Synaptics Clickpad can drag with left, right, or middle (HasBothButtonFeature).

Imagine a car with a Magic Gas Pedal:
Push pedal down... Nothing.
Push harder... Nothing.
Let go -- and you slam into the parked car in front of you, in a moment of full throttle.

 

Core i7 has always been quad-core with 4 extra core using Hyperthreading technology which emulates the extra processing units.

Core i5 us dual-core with 2 hyperthreading cores.

Hyperthreading 2.0 works better than 1.0.

 

You misunderstand. I am talking about the cost of parts, not the entire package. That is, the CPU costs some number of dollars ($378 in the case of the $2200 model, ~$200 in the case of the $1800 one), the GPU costs something else (we don't know exactly what, but it's a mid-range part from AMD so it's probably rather cheap), the hard drive and RAM add more (these ones we do know: the 5400RPM hard drive is worth very little
and the RAM is dirt cheap nowadays -- together they're worth maybe $80). I agree with you that the part combination and build are quite good as is OSX, I just wanted to point out that you are paying over $1000 for these.

That said, if all you care about is the Radeon 6650/6750, then wait a little bit -- they'll be out shortly on other notebooks. The screen will be harder to match (Apple appears to be the only one still doing 16:10), but based on what is already out, there should be some decent ones this time around.

 

Nice upgrades, however the 13 inch MBP needs ATI graphics options

 

Actually, there are a few dual-core Core i7 chips out there. The ULV (or CULV or low power option, whatever Intel calls it) Core i7 chip in the Alienware M11x is dual-core. The new Sandy Bridge Core i7 chips in the Dell XPS 15 are also dual-core (with options to upgrade to 2.0 GHz quad-core). The difference comes from the naming convention of the processors. Any Core i7 Sandy Bridge with a processor number followed by an M means that it is dual-core. So the Core i7 2620M (as found in the Dell XPS 15) is dual-core. However, the Core i7 2630QM (also found in the Dell XPS 15 and I think the 15" MacBook Pro) signifies a quad-core processor as it has a Q after the processor number.

Lastly, there have been a few Core i5 quad-core desktop processors even dating back to when the Core i series was first introduced. All Core i3 and Core i5 Sandy Bridge notebook processors are dual-core only with 5 dual-core Core i7 notebook processors as well.

Having said all of that, I might be switching to a MacBook Pro. I have been on the notebook market for about three years now ever since my Dell Inspiron XPS Gen. 2 died around 2008 and I haven't replaced it. I have gone through one HP netbook (which I am still using), a nettop (which I am still using), a Toshiba tablet from 2005 (I am not using), and my iPad (my regular everyday portable).

I have saved up some money and Uncle Sam was good to me this year (by giving me back most of the money I had already given him) and I will be going back to school for another Master's degree so I will need a new system. I am torn between the 13" MacBook Pro and 15" MacBook Pro. I have a way of obtaining 15% off of any order which means the entry level 15" MacBook Pro would set me back ~$1530 not including taxes. The dual-core Core i7 13" MacBook Pro will cost me $1350 without taxes. My only issue with any of the MacBook Pros is the lack of an integrated Blu-ray drive.

I am fine with the higher price point as their build quality seems second to none (and it often immitated, I am looking at you HP Envy series) and I really enjoy using Mac OS X (I have a quad-core Core i5 iMac at work) over Windows XP (I like Windows 7 though). ThunderBolt may have just sold me on a MacBook Pro so long as I can obtain a dock for my 2TB 7200 RPM hard drive. Now I just have to decide if I want to spend $200 more for the larger display and quad-core processor or if I want something more mobile. Given my continuous non-stop use of my iPad (which isn't going to change even with an iPad 2 introduction), I am leaning towards the 15" model which will likely sit at home more.

 

Nice win for AMD getting picked up by Apple.

 

I, too, am a little sad to see that Apple didn't include an optional discrete graphics upgrade for the 13-inch MacBook Pro.

Yes, the new integrated graphics on the Sandy Bridge platform are better than the previous generation of Intel integrated graphics. But despite Intel tweaking drivers so that they can handle a few select games, you still need a discrete GPU if you want to play a lot of games.

It's sad when an 11-inch MacBook Air might be a more capable gaming machine than a 13-inch MacBook Pro.

 

So, the screen and build quality justify an $800-900 mark-up? Damn thing better survive falling out of a plane in that case. This machine is only for Mac die-hards (and of course people with very deep wallets) at that price with those specs. There's really no reason for the 6490M being in the $1800 model, them forcing people to buy the $2200 if they want an upgrade from last year's model, and if that type of gouging is supported, it's only going to to get worse.

 

Even this time they forgot about Blu-ray drive.

 

Buying a Mac is paying for the brand. They do have better screens, build quality and battery than most of the competition but not enough better to justify the price difference, at least imo.

That said, if I was looking to drop $2200 on a notebook, this would be towards the top of my list.

 

Kobalt Systems - GS150 Optimus Notebook

^^ this with adjusted CPU. Costs around 950 pounds including VAT.
And from what i understand GF540m is even slightly worse then what top mbp got. But ye, its prolly way cheaper in us (just like macs)

 

Er, Clevo was pretty much first out of the gate with Sandy Bridge. So much so that they got hit by the Cougar Point recall. As in, they had models in customers' hands that had to get shipped back to the manufacturers. I'm not sure if these new MacBook Pros are even shipping yet. If you need specific Clevo Sandy Bridge models, the base systems are the W150HN, W170HN, P150HM, and P151HM1 (and their associated Sager/Kobalt counterparts).

And yes, inflation does have some effect (although not nearly this much in the course of a single year or two; going from $1800 to $2200 is nearly a 25% increase). However, there's also progress in technology to contend with, as well as supply and demand.

Oh, and I question the idea of "unmatched OS stability". I've seen more than my share of unstable Macs.

 

Just curious: where did you get the costs of the individual parts? OEM or retail pricing? As a PC uiser myself who cared about functionality above all else, I can see the point you're trying to make. Just give me good specs for a lower pricepoint and I'm game. Nobody wants to spend more than what they're "supposed" to right? Although that mentality might sound like common sense, just stop and think about it. How can PC manufacturers afford to sell their products for less when prices of literally all resource prices are on a steep rise? By cutting corners with cheaper materials and outsourcing to the most "affordable" ODM, that's how. Sure there are PC manufacturers that does it just as good as Apple (Sony with their VAIO Z series for example), but if you spec them up with identical specs (say compared to the previous $2200 2010 MB Pro model), prices won't be that much lower than Apple's prices; say by US$200 at most. I'd much rather have a computer from a reliable manufacturer such as Apple and happily pay the extra dough (or tax as you guys like to call it); however fanboy-ish that may sound. I won't pretend their machines were built with affordability in-mind but hey, why buy a Mercedes when you can get a Volkswagon for a fraction of the price?

 

Is the 13 inch version sandy bridge or only the 15 and 17?

If the 13 is SB I might jump on it.

 

The 13 is SB but has no dedicated graphics options.

 

Okay, thanks. Now I need to decide whether to pull the trigger on one of the MBP now or wait for SB models of Asus U-series to come out... Hmm.

 

Based on early Sandy Bridge reviews, the Intel graphics in the upper Core i5 and the Core i7 chip in the 13" MacBook Pro models is as capable as a mid-range HD 5000 series ATI Radeon dedicated card. The interesting thing about Sandy Bridge is that the integrated graphics also have turbo boost and that is limited on the processor configuration. So The quad-core 2GHz Core i7 supports better Intel graphics turbo boosting than the upper Core i5 processors.

It still seems like Intel's integrated graphics are going to be extremely capable (though still not as good at the Nvidia GT330M or lower end AMD Radeon 6000) so there may no longer be a need for having low end integrated solutions from Nvidia or AMD.

 

You mean entry-level. Specifically, the 5450.

 

Which really blows my mind why it does not.
What a travesty!

 

I bet it's just to make the next refresh more "special"... if you get what I mean. Apple have been doing this with their Macs for a while now. Cripple an iteration with crippled graphics (a step below the norm), then put in a decent graphics solution half a year later in the next refresh.

 

When was the last time it had dedicated graphics? Really, this isn't exactly shocking...

 

The CPU is from Intel's official price list for units of 1000 CPUs (I believe big companies like Apple may get a further discount, but I'm not sure -- in any case, it cannot be more than that). The hard drive and RAM are from Newegg (Apple almost certainly gets them at much cheaper prices).

Not all prices are on the rise. For example RAM is extremely cheap right now -- you can get 8GB (2x4GB) of DDR3 laptop memory from a reputable company for $80 or even less if you can find it on sale. Likewise, hard drives are cheap and getting cheaper (particularly the 5400RPM variety which is slower than the standard and is sold at a discount).

But this is exactly the point: a Mercedes is expensive, but it thoroughly outclasses the Volkswagen in every way. These new MacBookPros are expensive and they feature either average (CPU for all, video card on the 13" and $1800 15" model) or below average (RAM, hard drive) hardware. Would you buy a Mercedes if its engine and seats were the same as in a Volkswagen?

I understand what Apple is doing and their design and OSX don't really have an equal, but the amount of money they are asking for these is quite substantial.

 

The 15" optional and 17" standard screens.... are they an IPS tft panel?

Has Apple started to source the better quality tft panels as found in the HP 8740 and 8540 DreamcolorII screens?

If they have.... then these MacBook's will be the weapon of choice for photographers requiring mobile editing platforms.

 

They aren't IPS panels.

 

part numbers indicate they are still 6 bit TN panels

 

Yep. Same or similar panels as before.

 

1)Apple is still Media's favourite company so they will get free advertising as the "innovative" company and people who don't know better will drool over the machines.

2)Apple Fan Boys will still find reasons to forgive Apple's decision to drop in specing to increase profit margin.(Despite how they can switch to ATi Cards and drop Nvidia in their machines all of a sudden, indicates it wasn't a partner/technical limitation, rather it is a shareholders/company/marketing department decision)

3)They will keep promoting skewed benchmarks (not showing GPU performance drops) to show a marked improvement in the new machines compared to older machines to tell you why you need to get it, which to people who is in the know would be common sense since it is using Sandy Bridge (We already know what Sandy Bridge brings to the table).

4)You can be sure the next refresh will have a marked GPU improvement because Intel Graphics is the baseline you can't get any worse than that.

You can't rationally critique Macbooks, it just isn't logical.(They can always fallback on how smooth the Aluminium Feels argument or how nice it looks, as we all know looks can make people go crazy)
It is in the class of its own in the market its marketing department successfully created for itself.

 

^ Yeah that assessment is pretty fair.

 

Thanks for info on panels.

I'm mystified why Apple would not have offered IPS as an option. Perhaps HP has production tied up for a year or two/

 

HP doesn't make the panels, I believe they're from LG (though to be sure, confirm with someone with it). The problem is that IPS is expensive and Apple would either have to lose profit or charge $500 more for an upgrade.

 

HP charges about $420+ for a DC upgrade on the 8740w (after assumed discount). That's like $700 in Apple dollars. Also, the DC screen is power hungry and I'm pretty sure you need more depth.

 

Has there been any rumors of Apple merging the MacBook Pro and Air lines? i.e. design style, removing the optical drive while still keeping a decent CPU.

 

Nope, can't really have a standard voltage CPU in something that thin as of yet.

 

Yes, you are right. For some reason I was carrying over a previous thought I had discussed with someone else. Either way, under Mac OS X, the HD 3000 has been performing better than the previous 320M. My guess is Apple really tuned the drivers for the HD 3000. I don't count Windows benchmarks as Apple's drivers are clunky for Windows 7 (at best).

And? You're making it sound as if featuring Apple products in media releases somehow deters from their quality.

To me, that is forgivable (Apple isn't the only one doing it) up to a certain extent. Even HP was/is charging $1000 for a quad-core Core i7 17" notebook with a 900p panel and Intel HD 3000. A "high end" notebook like that shouldn't feature such a low resolution panel or rely solely on Intel's IGP solution. There are also other companies as well who are cutting hardware while keeping prices the same. Apple is not the only one doing it. They do carry a typically higher price but releases from Sony and Lenovo both have lower specs for their prices as well (among many others).

Show me one company who isn't skewing their benchmarks and I will show you a liar. I have observed results tailored to certain audiences and tests from Dell, HP, Lenovo, Apple, Sony, Acer, and Asus. Skewing benchmarks in the computer industry is nothing new and something that was practiced even dating back in the early days. I remember paying $300 more for a 266MHz Pentium II processor with MMX technology over the non-MMX release as it supposedly provided better gaming performance. Were Gateway and Intel right? I don't know but I can already tell you that their results weren't 100% accurate and they did not represent real-world experiences.

Well, you could get worse if used an older graphical option. Under Mac OS X, the Intel HD 3000 graphics is performing better than the Nvidia GT320M in the previous MacBook Pros. Even then, I don't see a reason why improved graphical performance would be a hindrance. Again, going back to that $1000 high end HP notebook with Intel HD 3000 graphics, the next version will have improved graphics as well and it is coming out in the next few months/weeks. Should HP be punished? What about the countless other companies that are still selling last generation notebooks with non-SB Core i processors and GMA 4500MHD graphics? Those are going to be upgraded in the next few weeks/months as well.

Its fine that people don't like Apple products. I admit that their higher prices don't make them for everyone and I have seen (along with made) many logical arguments against Apple as a company and their MacBook Pro line. All of those were logical though and I don't see how the 4 things you listed would detract from the MacBook Pro line at all. There, I did all of that without mentioning the super duper awesome-o smooth aluminum and looks that make me want to orgazims.

 

1)It is not a practice among others OEMs to use benchmarks to sell their products.
They simple post the specs and thats it, read and find out yourself.
You can usually gauge the performance by the parts in use if you are a hardware enthusiast

2)The "improvement" in OS X for the Intel 3000 Graphics is not a real improvement, because it is due to limitation put on software not hardware, deliberate or not that is up to you to decide.

3)There are countless OEM selling last years products but they are not getting any attention(Real hardware enthusiast don't even LOOK at them). Don't you think that when something more attention it needs to get more scrutiny as well?

 

Apple is the Bose of PC makers.

All style, no substance, poor price-performance ratio. Who cares about how great OSX is if the computer itself is overpriced by almost double?

The build quality just isn't worth that much when the computer goes obsolete so damn fast. As long as it's put together well enough to last two-ish years, it's golden--when taken care of, even the worst-built Acer or Gateway will still have its internals go obsolete before the device wears out physically!

 

Too far. Bose uses the cheapest materials throughout and designs the speakers to be so compromised that they can't even compete against something 1/4 the price. Apple at least uses quality parts (the same as its competitors for the most part) and provides the average user with a good experience and ample performance for their tasks. While I don't personally value the strengths of Apple, I can understand why many users do (and not in a condescending way). But Bose has no redeeming value, the sound quality is so unacceptable in every way, their users might as well be deaf.

 

I have observed OEMs using specs in the past and they will do it again. Alienware (ie Dell) has posted 3DMark scores a countless number of times for their high end notebooks and we all know that they tailored to make the hardware look good. Even's AMD does it with their Fusion APU. The 1.5GHz APU out now was supposed to handle the same as a Core i5 of a higher clock speed and that certainly wasn't the case. AMD is also showing off their not-yet-released APU that is supposed to perform better than the 2.0GHz Sandy Bridge Core i7 out now but we all know that won't be the case.

And? Is that any different than manufacturers abandoning driver updates that improve operations in favor of new hardware?

Again, I ask this: and? Why does it matter if Apple gets more attention than others even though they all use the same old hardware? Sony and others are still pushing machines with Core 2 Duo chips while charging prices similar to Apple. They may not get the same attention as Apple but they are still doing it. I don't see what that has anything to do with the overall quality of the MacBook Pro line. I also fail to see how anything you said actually takes away from the updated MacBook Pro line (some of which has absolutely nothing to do with the hardware but rather the image surrounding Apple).

 

I will let others educate you on:
1)how not to attempt to misread the future
2)specs, GPU and CPU, how to compare them properly without over-reliance on skewed benchmarks shown by OEMs.
3)why even without benchmarks we already know why Zacate isn't comparable to mainstream Intel
4)The Nvidia Verde Program and how we source for new drivers and consistency of driver quality on Windows
5)The need for companies to clear stock, hence we have a weird situation of poor specs expensive price (as well as the business label) and how to tell if the laptop is value for money by READING the specs and pricing (while Apple is pushing new laptops with poor specs and high pricing) At least SONY comes with a good high resolution LED panels.

Too busy to be entertaining you.

 

I still fail to see what 98% of that has to do with the MacBook Pro lineup change. We have come full circle again to many superfluous items and it appears that you are grasping at straws now that you stopped commenting on how "popular" the MacBook Pro line is. No, I do not need to be educated on the subjects you have listed. That wasn't the purpose of any of this. My statements were made to show you that Apple is not the only company out there playing with numbers, pushing expensive hardware that may not perform as well as its price bracket indicates, Apple is not the only company pushing optimized drivers for certain hardware while (what looks like) abandoning drastic improvements for previous releases, and that their popularity has nothing to do with their actual quality.

 

I don't really want to get caught up in this, but...

AMD isn't an OEM, so your points about them are irrelevant to the "bickering" going on between you two.

 

I know, I never said AMD was an OEM. I used Dell (Alienware) as my example as an OEM and thought I would throw in AMD in case they wanted to talk about other aspects such as chip makers, hardware manufacturers, etc. in case weinter decided to come back and say "no chip maker uses benchmarks."

 

That's not true at all. Bose lacks both substance AND style. Apple still has some (overpriced) style going for it at the end of the day