MBA, and dual core future????

[Kissaragi]

I'm sorry OP, but you need to do a little more research.

A lot more research!

**opps, was beaten to that**

 

[spmiz12]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

I'm sorry OP, but you need to do a little more research.

I'd say a lot more research - these "obsolete references" are little more than hyperbolic rhetoric that sound like they were thought out by a 13 year old.

Sorry gang that you all feel I need to do more research, but obsolete was not a word I came up with, readmany apple users post on MBP board here... Alot of people say why go 13"MBP because of old/obsolete processor comparedto the i5/i7....

My question was, for all that aren't so quick to past judgment; how can people say that, yet the Air was built around it and it is so popular??? I never said it would quit working.....

 

[aristobrat]

I read alot about Dual Core processor now being obsolete; IE....ecspecially in the 13" MBP realm.

Comparison-wise, perhaps.

Here's a screen shot from my Air showing the processor usage when I'm doing my normal daily things (Mail, Firefox, iTunes, Aperture, Quicken, and a few other apps).

Notice how the processor usage is pretty much nothing?

I also have an 2.66GHz i7 MBP. Guess what? All of that extra processor speed the i7 brings to the table adds NOTHING to the experience of running my daily apps. Why? Because those apps don't require a lot of processor.

But something they do all require is disk access. And the Air, with its standard SSD, delivers an experience that utterly SMOKES my i7 MBP in regards to speed of my daily apps.

There are two things I do once or twice a month that really require processor -- converting video and importing a ton of Aperture pictures. These two things run slower on the Air because of its processor.

So if you give me a tool that runs significantly more quickly 90% of the time, but slower 10% of the time, I'm going to take it. For me and the way I use my Mac, it's all about the SSD -- not the processor.

 

[aristobrat]

My question was, for all that aren't so quick to past judgment; how can people say that, yet the Air was built around it and it is so popular??? I never said it would quit working.....

The way some people "rate" their computer's performance relative to others is by simplistically comparing CPU benchmarks, and i5/i7 CPUs benchmark faster that the previous Core 2 Duos.

So if all your care about in your Mac is its processor, then get one with an i5/i7.

If you care about the total experience, you'll consider that a slower C2D processor coupled with a much faster hard drive can often complete a task more quickly than a faster i5/i7 processor coupled with a slower hard drive can. Just depends on the process. That's where you'll need to do some more research in regards to how you use your Mac.

 

[KnightWRX]

If you care about the total experience, you'll consider that a slower C2D processor coupled with a much faster hard drive can often complete a task more quickly than a faster i5/i7 processor coupled with a slower hard drive can. Just depends on the process. That's where you'll need to do some more research in regards to how you use your Mac.

Bad argument. SSDs are available for the Core i5/i7 equipped Macs, making your point moot. What isn't available in the case of the MBA/MBP 13" and other Core 2 Duo equipped Macs is a better GPU.

For these Macs, using the "newer not obsolete" Core i5/i7 would have meant apple having to use Intel's integrated graphics processing unit, which would have seriously hurt the performance of these machines for any graphics intensive tasks. As it stands, Core 2 Duo allowed Apple to use nVidia graphics processors which provide much better performance.

And that is why these computers "use obsolete processors". But seriously, obsolete ? Call me when Intel releases an instruction that only runs on Core i5/i7 and all software makes use of that instruction without providing a fallback path. Then we can talk about obsolete. Until then, it's all a few percentage points on a synthetic benchmark.

And this spmiz12, is why you need to do more research. BTW just repeating FUD spread by the nerd-porn addicts is not research.

 

[aristobrat]

SSDs are available for the Core i5/i7 equipped Macs, making your point moot.

As long as the OP understands that the HDD is almost always the bottleneck that slows a system down in day-to-day usage (not the processor), I really don't care if the argument was bad or if the point was moot.

 

[KnightWRX]

As long as the OP understands that the HDD is almost always the bottleneck that slows a system down in day-to-day usage (not the processor), I really don't care if the argument was bad or if the point was moot.

Except when it's the GPU, or the lack of RAM, or ... You can't generalize like that either and SSD or no SSD is not the reason Apple picked the Core 2 Duo, which is what the OP is asking about specifically (what is "research" is about). The GPU is the only reason we still have Core 2 Duos (oh, and the wattage of ULV Core iX parts which are not quite as low for the 11.6" model as the Core 2 Duo ULVs).

 

[aristobrat]

You can't generalize like that either and SSD or no SSD is not the reason Apple picked the Core 2 Duo, which is what the OP is asking about specifically (what is "research" is about).

I think the part of the OP's OP that I quoted was his statement that the Core 2 Duo was obsolete. I was giving him my opinion on why I don't think the Core 2 Duo is obsolete.

I wasn't trying to answer his question about why Apple picked the C2D.

 

[gwsat]

I can't imagine why anybody but we Apple nerds would even care whether Apple used a C2D or an i series chip in the new MBA. In the real world, the difference in processing speed in running mainstream, everyday applications will be so little different from chip to chip, it will not be noticeable to the user. In any event, by choosing the C2D processor, Apple was able to use NVIDIA's outstanding 320M GPU instead of being forced into using the inferior integrated GPU Intel forces its i series customers to use. Indeed that's why the resolution of both the MBAs' screens is so remarkably high.

Apple's design of the new MBAs has provided its users with the greatest good for the greatest number. Fortunately, Apple pays far more attention to user satisfaction than it does to spec whore satisfaction.

 

[Hellhammer]

Indeed that's why the resolution of both the MBAs' screens is so remarkably high.

Intel IGP could provide 1440x900 just fine, in fact it does 1920x1200 in 17" MBP. I doubt the GPU had anything to do with the higher res screens that Apple used as any modern GPU is able to drive a laptop monitor.

I know it's a lot slower and I completely agree that C2D + 320M was a good move but I just wanted to correct you

 

[KnightWRX]

Intel IGP could provide 1440x900 just fine, in fact it does 1920x1200 in 17" MBP. I doubt the GPU had anything to do with the higher res screens that Apple used as any modern GPU is able to drive a laptop monitor.

My 10 year old Matrox G200 could push those kind resolutions just fine. Screen framebuffers have not been a limit for GPUs in quite a while.

 

[Apple Corps]

KnightWRX says

"And this spmiz12, is why you need to do more research. BTW just repeating FUD spread by the nerd-porn addicts is not research".

PRICELESS

 

[teaneedz]

Balanced User Experience

The MBA for me represents a well balanced user experience. Besides OS X and UNIX, the hardware itself is dialed into a very usable machine.

Although C2D held me back from the MBP 13, it didn't bother me at all with the MBA. The flash memory and ultra portability trumped CPU for me.

The ultra-portability factor means I'm using it more without asking myself do I want to. I wanted a return of the 12" display from Apple and gave up all hopes of that. I poured myself another cup of tea when the 11.6 was announced. I would have anyways but still ... I was deeply satisfied.

I use it more also because there is no heat from it. Maybe it will warm up but I haven't felt it. My lap is thanking me for this new tool.

The speed from the flash memory is very very good. Apps pull right up. My usage benefits more from the flash storage speed than from a cutting edge processor. Yes this machine will do what I need for years.

C2D is not an issue on this machine for me at all. I'd rather have it with the 320M than Intel's graphic solution with an i. I think Apple made the right product decisions with this little baby. The user experience is finely balanced on the Air.

 

[pandamonia]

The sandybridge ULV CPU is going to bring Turbo boost and better power management along with a BIG perfomance jump from C2D and the GPU will be on the level with most Nvidia integrated units.

This is all pretty much a given.

But thanks to apple and its slow take up of new technology you will probably be buying it when its out of date and still paying top $$.

its how they keep their margins up!