No need, There's plenty of posts here, including mine that was saying the same thing. They're using a C2D, because they can have the nvidia gpu, as opposed to being forced to use the intel integrated gpu
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why No I3 Processor?
- Thread starter TXCraig
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No need, There's plenty of posts here, including mine that was saying the same thing. They're using a C2D, because they can have the nvidia gpu, as opposed to being forced to use the intel integrated gpu
No, I meant surface area. And no, I'm not wrong in both instances, you've just conveniently linked pictures of either a 15 or 17 inch macbook pro-- both which HAVE the necessary surface area to incorporate both nehalem processors and discrete graphics.
However, I will provide two pics: the macbook air and the 13 inch macbook pro, both of which do not have adequate surface area on their logic boards for more components.
Is the insides of the macbook pro. You can clearly see they don't have the adequate room for 3 separate chips+vram chips on that logic board.
Is the insides of the 13 inch macboo pro. The logicboard is considerably smaller than the logic board of the 15-17 inch.
Here's a way better view of the 13 inch macbook pro's logic board. You can see it clearly does not have adequate surface area for more chips.
However, I will provide two pics: the macbook air and the 13 inch macbook pro, both of which do not have adequate surface area on their logic boards for more components.
Is the insides of the macbook pro. You can clearly see they don't have the adequate room for 3 separate chips+vram chips on that logic board.
Is the insides of the 13 inch macboo pro. The logicboard is considerably smaller than the logic board of the 15-17 inch.
Here's a way better view of the 13 inch macbook pro's logic board. You can see it clearly does not have adequate surface area for more chips.
The i3 was released a year ago in January... it was not just released... The core 2 duo has been out since 2006
1500.00 bucks for a machine with a 4 year old proc?
it may be 4 years old, but it's still one fast cookie. Typing documents isn't getting any faster, most apps still run great on the Core 2 Duo. CPU useful lifespans are getting longer these days.
No, I meant surface area. And no, I'm not wrong in both instances, you've just conveniently linked pictures of either a 15 or 17 inch macbook pro-- both which HAVE the necessary surface area to incorporate both nehalem processors and discrete graphics.
However, I will provide two pics: the macbook air and the 13 inch macbook pro, both of which do not have adequate surface area on their logic boards for more components.
Is the insides of the macbook pro. You can clearly see they don't have the adequate room for 3 separate chips+vram chips on that logic board.
Is the insides of the 13 inch macboo pro. The logicboard is considerably smaller than the logic board of the 15-17 inch.
Here's a way better view of the 13 inch macbook pro's logic board. You can see it clearly does not have adequate surface area for more chips.
the biggest offender there is the optical drive. Get rid of that thing and you can fit a discrete GPU plus move the HDD/SSD into the leftover space. Then, extend the battery into the space vacated by the HDD and you've got a far better machine. I can't wait for the day optical drives get killed off...
You said 3/4 of it, the MBP 13" battery is less than 1/3 battery yes yes you are wrong, however the battery is a significant amount space, and so is the ODD.No, I meant surface area. And no, I'm not wrong in both instances, you've just conveniently linked pictures of either a 15 or 17 inch macbook pro-- both which HAVE the necessary surface area to incorporate both nehalem processors and discrete graphics.
However, I will provide two pics: the macbook air and the 13 inch macbook pro, both of which do not have adequate surface area on their logic boards for more components.
Is the insides of the macbook pro. You can clearly see they don't have the adequate room for 3 separate chips+vram chips on that logic board.
Is the insides of the 13 inch macboo pro. The logicboard is considerably smaller than the logic board of the 15-17 inch.
Here's a way better view of the 13 inch macbook pro's logic board. You can see it clearly does not have adequate surface area for more chips.
The miscommunication was people were thinking you were talking about the whole thing not just the logic board
The MBA is mostly battery, if they made it uniformly .68 inches they would easily have enough space, but that isn't Apple's way.
The MBP 13 does not have enough space for three chips +VRAM that is agreed as well as the logic board being much smaller
Top image was the Unibody Aluminum MacBook, next was the MBP 15" then MBP 17"
I liked things better when QE2 was a luxury cruise liner and not our economic strategy.
Enough people have pointed out why the MBA doesn't have an iX processor (Intel's greedy Lawsuit, Intel's crappy IGP, Physical Space, and TDP reasons being among the many others).
But, for those that have said the C2D is a 4-year-old processor, you're not correct, at least not for the specific chips that are in the MBA's.
The SL9600 2.13Ghz processor was launched in Early 2009. So it's not even 2 years old.
And for those of you who want an i3 processor -- the only one that *might* fit in with the MBAs thermals is the i3-330UM - and 18W TDP and Integrated Graphics. And how fast does that i3 processor run? Oh yeah: 1.2Ghz. And no turbo boost. Yuck.
Besides, at that 18W thermal threshold, you can get the i7-640UM which runs at 1.42Ghz (but Turbo Boosts up to 2.53Ghz) -- but you're still stuck with Intel's crummy IGP.
Of course the real problem is that neither of those i3/i7 chips and their supporting chipsets will fit on the MBA's tiny logic board.
But, for those that have said the C2D is a 4-year-old processor, you're not correct, at least not for the specific chips that are in the MBA's.
The SL9600 2.13Ghz processor was launched in Early 2009. So it's not even 2 years old.
And for those of you who want an i3 processor -- the only one that *might* fit in with the MBAs thermals is the i3-330UM - and 18W TDP and Integrated Graphics. And how fast does that i3 processor run? Oh yeah: 1.2Ghz. And no turbo boost. Yuck.
Besides, at that 18W thermal threshold, you can get the i7-640UM which runs at 1.42Ghz (but Turbo Boosts up to 2.53Ghz) -- but you're still stuck with Intel's crummy IGP.
Of course the real problem is that neither of those i3/i7 chips and their supporting chipsets will fit on the MBA's tiny logic board.
i7-6x0LM would fit fine too if the Intel IGP was used. Those top out at 2.26GHz and go up to 3.06GHz with Turbo.
The architecture from which the CPU is derived from is for all intents purposes 4 years old. The performance gains that we see in the Core-i5 (and core-i3?) are not present. So technically you are correct, its a newer chip, but one based one an older design
Exactly. The main changes to the Core 2 Duo through the years have been to reduce the size of the die and the power requirements. Apple had MacBooks with 2.16GHz Core 2 Duos in early 2007. There isn't that much difference between that processor and the one in the "Ultimate 13".