Steve Jobs' Smoke and Mirrors on 13'' MBP's CPU
Steve Jobs Explains Why the 13-inch MacBook Pro doesn't have any Nehalem sweetness.
The new MacBook Pros, released earlier this week, which help boost Apple's 'professional' line of laptops up to the modern Intel Nehalem-based Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs… except for the 13-inch version. While the 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros were updated with the latest from Intel, the 13-inch MacBook Pro got refreshed with a brand new chipset that included a custom integrated GPU from Nvidia and got stuck with the same sort of Core 2 Duo that it had the previous two generations.
So what's up with that? That's what 'DJ' wanted to know why the 13-inch MacBook Pro didn't get the same Core i5 treatment, so he emailed Steve Jobs about it – and guess what, the Apple CEO responded.
"Far faster graphics and 10 hour battery trump 10-20% faster CPU," Jobs responded.
Another report notes that Steve Jobs gave the following response: "We chose killer graphics plus 10 hour battery life over a very small CPU speed increase. Users will see far more performance boost from the speedy graphics."
While we do recognize that having a fast GPU is critical, especially with the GPGPU thing coming into fruition, there are a few inconsistencies in Apple's messages to consumers.
First of all, Steve Jobs says that keeping the 13-inch MacBook Pro on a Core 2 Duo instead of a Core i3/i5/i7 is only a loss of a CPU that's between 10 to 20 percent faster, which Steve Jobs characterized as "a very small CPU speed increase." But in Apple's own press release, it wrote, "The new 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pro models are up to 50 percent faster than the previous systems," which have been confirmed in early benchmark comparisons. Those previous systems were running Core 2 Duo chips too, not clocked at around the same speeds that the latest MacBook Pro 13.
Of course, Jobs in his mind could be comparing the new MacBook Pro's Core 2 Duo with a Core i3 -- and in some benchmarks the Core i3 may outpace the Core 2 Duo by only 20 percent or less -- but he's still using a different sort of metric where he downplays the need for a new CPU in the 13-inch model as the company line lauds the massive gains in the 15- and 17-inchers.
Another inconsistency, though it could just be misinterpretation or the enthusiasm for his own products, is when Steve Jobs characterizes the graphics as "killer" and "far faster." While the new 320M is indeed up to 80 percent faster than the old 9400M, it's no more killer or faster than the superior 330M that's inside the 15- and 17-inch laptops.
There is one thing that's better and improved on the 13-inch over its bigger brothers, and that's the highly impressive 10-hour battery life, which is no doubt helped by the 320M being more 40 percent more energy efficient over the previous IGP.
There's the possibility that Apple and Nvidia wouldn't have been able to fit the discrete graphics inside the 13-inch MacBook Pro, leading Jobs to say that it's one-or-the-other, but we're inclined to believe that it comes down to a cost/profit margin issue and keeping the $1199 price.
- Nvidia,
- Intel,
- GeForce,
- Apple,
- steve-jobs ,
- macbook ,
- macbook-pro ,
- core-2-duo ,
- 320m
- Intel Sampling Nehalem-successor ''Sandy Bridge''
- XCOM is Back... But as a First Person Shooter
- 5 Laptops that Destroy the New MacBook Pros
- Intel Teases Better, Faster Dual-core Atom CPU
- Report: Adobe Prepping Lawsuit Against Apple
- Intel Announces New Atom SoC ''Tunnel Creek''
- Deals for April 14: 240Hz LCD HDTV with Blu-ray
- Buffalo Launching SSDs with PATA Support
- External Device Reads HDDs, Memory Cards
- Intel Light Peak ''Launching'' in 2011, Maybe 2012
- Deals for April 15: StarCraft 2 Collector's Edition
- ATI Catalyst 10.4 Preview Driver Now Available
- Nvidia Custom-Made the 320M IGP for Apple
- 200GB Toshiba HDD Built for Automobiles
- Intel, Nvidia, NSA Rally with iPad's Early Success
- UCSC Students Creating Killer StarCraft Bot
- Deals for April 16: Blu-ray Bundle, God of War 3
- Hacker: Microsoft More Secure Than Apple, Adobe
I think what he's getting at is that, for Apple to keep it at a certain price point, the tradeoff was worth it. The 15 and 17 inch ones have higher prices and thus they can better justify using both.
I'm not defending Apple's prices in any way, just trying to put reason to why they might have done it that way (THEIR logic, not mine.)
Smoke, mirrors and infinite BS that's what Apple Almighty does the best.
Apple using smoke and mirrors?
What kind of bull is this.
The next thing you are going to be telling me is that the media industry doesn't care about the consumer at all and would file suite against a 12 year old girl!
Oh wait....
And..... I will not be buying a 13" Macbook Pro. Thanks Steve, you made that decision easy for me. I will not spend $1200-$1500 for outdated technology technology.
Hey Steve, I got 2007 on the phone. They said they want their Core 2 Duo processors back.
somebody should take steve's money, position, and everything tying him to apple away. then, place him in the real world, so he can get some "REAL" perspective.
then he might see what we want, and not what a rich, famous person wants.
Its an approch that AMD has been useing and one intel has yet come to grips. You have a cheap but adicuate CPU to feed a nice GPU in truth if you look at it you really dont need an i5 or an i7. Would you rather have a 1200 USD laptop or a 2500 USD laptop. Also the i3/i5/i7 arnt the best on power consumption or thermal output... Dont get me wrong its nice to have the firepower but its like you brought a cannon to a gun fight.
I was actually thinking of buying a new 13" but now the only way I'll do that is if I get a "killer" deal on one of the old models. If no deals are "killer" than I'll probably just stick to my well known PC. Such a bummer, I would have already ordered it regardless of the price.
Asus, Sony, Lenova, everyone is touting i-core in 13 inch models. This is just an Apple letdown, no less.
shouldn't the i3's and i5's have less power consumption than previous cpu generation? just thinkin...
ahhh apple
you've done it again
The thing is there are laptops that bring more to the table than just a Core 2 Duo these days at or below the $1200 USD price point. In the article Tom's did, "5 Laptops that Destroy the New MacBook Pros", All the Laptops previewed had Intel Core i7-720QM @ 2.8 GHz processors and the most expensive was the Alienware at $1,600 USD.
As far as bringing a canon to a gunfight. If I'm going to a gunfight I'm bring the entire 9th Armored Division with me.
Sadly, most Americans are too dumbed-down to see con-artists like Steve Jobs for what they really are. Yesterday, I walked into a local coffee shop and was received by a bunch of technologically illiterate kiddies, some clad clothing with colors to match the color of their laptop cases, proudly flashing what has become the insignia of their enslavement to mass marketing agendas and consumer hoodwinking, a laptop flashing the Apple logo. There were only two people in the room using non Apple logoed hardware; they were also the ones who looked stereotypically smarter.
considering that culv based laptops, the only others who have battery lives on the same order of magnitude cost around 800 bucks, and are generally made of plastic,I would argue that it is not so much of a rip off.
THE PERSON who wrote the above article is a RETART, when JOB say the system is up to 50% faster IT DOSNT JUST MEAN graphic wise it means the whole system, including GPU AND CPU performance. + the difference between core 2 duo and i3 (since i5 make no sense in the 13incher), is 10-20% faster is more then a resonsible statement, + having 330M in 13incher is + but apple need to make a clear margin between the 13inch and 15inch.
I think you are a "RETART" whatever that is? Steve is just lying to everyone. 10 to 20 percent faster is what he said when trying to sell a 13inch. 50 percent faster than the previous generation is what he said when trying to sell the 15 and 17inch models. A gpu isnt going to make your system 30 to 40percent faster day to day. And it definatly wont on a system like a mac that cant game.
Seeing as a I3 cpu is 10 bucks cheaper,faster then a core 2 duo, uses less power then a core 2 duo, motherboards are priced about the same. so trying to keep prices down is just bullshit...err i mean typical apple business practices..they just want to force the power user to hit up the more expensive 15 and 17inchers. because for the price and performance the 13inch laptops aren't crazy over priced like most apple products.
However the battery life of the 13 inch is impressive(with an i3 it would be even more so).
They couldn't fit a 330M in the MBP 13?? Couldn't they hire someone from Sony?? Look at the Vaio Z with a 13.1" screen, core i5/i7 and GT 330M in a smaller form factor than the 13" MBP. Looks like Apple should try to recruit someone from Sony!
THE PERSON who wrote the above article is a RETART
Absolutely astonishing that people do this. I swear, Tom's readers are the worst spellers on the internet.
Edit: I'm going to think that zhemin got banned for his horrific spelling. Keep up the good work, admin.
business as usual....
Can't blame Steve Jobs. He's not forcing anyone to buy his products. People are just dumb. And unfortunately there are plenty of them out there to keep his company rich. If I can sell tapped water in recycled plastic bottles and get rich, I would.
So... Job know nothing about hardware and he's a bad liar when come to the hardware.
Haha Apple uses an nVidia 3xx chipset!
Wait isn't that the same as a...
Asus, Sony, Lenova, everyone is touting i-core in 13 inch models. This is just an Apple letdown, no less.
Hell, Dell even has the QUAD CORE version of the Core i7 processor (Core i7 720qm) available in the 14" Studio 14 laptop. Needless to say, it is NOT going to have "10 hours of battery life," but the option is there for users who want a very powerful, small, and lightweight notebook. Plus, it costs around $1049.
Stop all the bitch'n about the 13" MacBook Pro. The 13" model needs a much smaller circuit board to fit in the smaller unibody chassis. There simply is not enough room on the circuit board for the CPU, the South Bridge, and a discrete GPU. To use only the integrated Intel HD graphics would cause several benchmarks to fall off ridiculously. Yes Intel HD graphics really are that bad.
So Apple had to punt on this one, and decided that sticking with the (tried and true) Core 2 Duo wasn't all that bad of a tradeoff. Product design is never easy, and when you are dealing with 1" thick notebooks, the trade-offs can be aggravating at times.
I think that Apple made the right decision, given the circumstances.
@teamswitcher: why are you explaining differently than Jobs? He said he wanted to keep the "profit" by not upgrading the CPU as well as the graphic and the 10hr battery life. I believe that's what he meant.
Price? Scan the net- I just did and found laptops with i3 processors for as low as $600 and i5 processors as low as $800.
OTOH 10 hours of battery life is very good for anything beyond the ultralow voltage cpu's, but you cannot characterize any MB or MBP as lightweight. They are very heavy compared to their competition. The first time I picked up my niece's whitebook I couldn't believe how heavy it was.
I'm not sure you can believe any word that comes out of Steve's mouth, unless he is saying how great he is. Everything he says is going to be selfserving for him and/or Apple.
I think the answer to the question of "why Core 2 Duo today" is more complicated than the types of answers Steve likes to give. The answer he did give is oversimplified, self-serving, and fails to satisfy, but is not patently untruthful. Here's why -
The CPU performance comparison was likely pitting the C2D parts against the new i3. And the i3 isn't that powerful. It's basically the new Celeron.
And if the Apple engineers had chosen an i3 or i5 CPU they would have been stuck with Intel's integrated graphics solution. Which isn't very powerful. They could have added another graphics chip and switching, but that require room in the cost budget, and on the motherboard, and in the power consumption budget. But the C2D parts can still use Nvidia chipsets with integrated Nvidia graphics. So, Apple had a design choice between two options: one with a new CPU marketing name, slightly better CPU performance but requiring compromises in either graphics performance or battery life (and profit margins), or another option with more balance between CPU, graphics and costs. And they chose the latter.
I understand why this is seen as "old tech" and disparaged by hardware enthusiasts who love the latest and greatest. On the other hand, if you ignore the component list and just look at the specs, Apple is delivering a beautifully designed, highly usable, software-packed system, that performs very well. And for a lot of buyers this will look good. Particularly students and field professionals who will benefit from that 10 hour battery life.
Haha Apple uses an nVidia 3xx chipset!Wait isn't that the same as a...
I think you missed the whole point. No one is complaining about the graphics this time around. They sort of got it right, and using current GPUs.
Problem is, they put in antiquated CPUs (Core 2 Duo) into the 13" version of the Macbook Pro. Everyone in the tech world thought these processors died with the end of 2009. Well, for the past 4 months everyone in the tech world has been rolling out updated laptops with shiny new Core i3, i5, and i7 processors.
Then in mid-April 2010, April rolls out very expensive 13" laptops with the antiquated Core 2 Duo processors of yesteryear (costing $1199, and $1499). Needless to say, it was a huge shock and resulted in a tremendous amount disappointment.
This is why I refuse to buy apple products one they are far to overpriced and made very cheaply for the except of a few examples. Second very limited third party support beyond software...
This company is like microsoft 1984 and THX1138 all rolled into one big fat cigar slapped with copyrights and all strings attached.
Bad move on there behalf,why the wouldn't even stick an I3 in there is mind boggling.
I suppose there hoping what many mac users do already and look past the horrible specs and buy it because it is a mac.
In my experience, Apple makes high quality computers that tend to last. Gap is narrowing between Windows 7 and OSX. Apple charges a premium price which I think is on the high end. The PC market lets you save money by buying third party peripheries and updates. Smoke, mirrors, BS - DEFINITELY. Is Apple the only company that uses smoke, mirrors, and BS? Hardly, they teach these skills in business school. They even give you a sheepskin that says MBA. This is the corporate landscape. Whatever happened to Commodore, Atari...?
Apple has a lot of slime in their marketing department which has allowed them to survive in a highly competitive, cutthroat business environment. One needs to be an educated consumer when one buys a computer.