4 ms·

Specs for Macbook Pro are no better than 2011 Mac Book Pro If you don't care about Retina Display. Can Innovate My Ass. (Apple's own standard way of putting it

by kumarm 13y ago

Specs for Macbook Pro are no better than 2011 Mac Book Pro If you don't care about Retina Display. Can Innovate My Ass. (Apple's own standard way of putting it). Specs from 2011 MAc Book Pro: * Processor 2.4 GHz Intel Core i7 * Memory 8 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 * Graphics Intel HD Graphics 3000 512 MB Good to know Moore's law is out of fashion for Apple.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
Retina display and 64MB of on-die cache is a big deal. Haswell is a lot more efficient at the same clockspeed than the circa-2011 i7.
cube13 13y ago
This is really a problem with Intel's branding and CPU numbering more than with Apple, unfortunately. I can't tell you the difference between an i7-4500 and i7-4500k, but I can tell you that sandy/ivy bridge gives a heck of a lot better performance than the previous Westmeres and nehalems.
- sunneh 13y ago
  The K represents a specific series of the same cpu but with an unlocked cpu multiplier for over clocking purposes in the desktop environment.
Shivetya 13y ago
do note that PCI-E flash storage is significantly faster than previous versions. The only issue I have is, not Nvidia graphics options for the 13 inch models
MaysonL 13y ago
PCIe SSD.
ksec 13y ago
First, PC/Notebook Industry hasn't been on the performance tracks for a few years already. Peformance/Watts is what matters. Faster CPU with Higher IPC at Lower Power. Much Faster Graphics. Intel HD 3000 is Shit. Even the 4000 is crap. Only Iris Started to be good. ( But not Great ) PCI-E SSD. I believe 2011 MBP doesn't have SSD as Standard yet. And this new PCI-E SSD is likely to be based on PCI-E 3.0 rather then 2.0 as in previous MBPr. So Please. go and troll somewhere else.
Groxx 13y ago
Yeah, all that's different is: * new processor architecture (counting GHz isn't too useful any more, and it bursts to 3GHz+ anyway) * faster memory (1600 vs 1333) (DDR3 vs DDR3L (whatever that is)) (edit: DDR3L sounds like lower-power-usage DDR3) * newer graphics cards (intel 4000, "iris( pro)?", beefier nvidia) Not saying they shouldn't have done more - I'm simply avoiding that debate entirely. But you're not comparing Apples to Apples, and even if you were they're still upgraded.
necro 13y ago
Yeah I'm running a MBP 8.2 also (released February 24, 2011). 16GB ram 512GB intel ssd 1TB sata instead of cdrom 1GB AMD Radeon HD 6770M I always got the next best mbp but since this one I thought I was always going backwards on certain things so I have not upgraded. So a 2.5 year old laptop still has these advantages that are important to me... - non glossy display - I have 1.5TB storage now ( and can go higher now ) compared to the max 1TB that is offered now. - I'm still on snow leopard , primarily due to the multiple fullscreen idiocy in lion and mountain lion ( but that might change now in mavericks) My only reason to upgrade is that I would like the fans to come on less when I'm plugged into an external 30" display. It's a little disappointing that the last 3 mbp releases are not, or making me thing twice, about hitting the buy button.

by kumarm 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 13y ago

Retina display and 64MB of on-die cache is a big deal. Haswell is a lot more efficient at the same clockspeed than the circa-2011 i7.

cube13 13y ago

This is really a problem with Intel's branding and CPU numbering more than with Apple, unfortunately. I can't tell you the difference between an i7-4500 and i7-4500k, but I can tell you that sandy/ivy bridge gives a heck of a lot better performance than the previous Westmeres and nehalems.

sunneh 13y ago
The K represents a specific series of the same cpu but with an unlocked cpu multiplier for over clocking purposes in the desktop environment.

Shivetya 13y ago

do note that PCI-E flash storage is significantly faster than previous versions. The only issue I have is, not Nvidia graphics options for the 13 inch models

MaysonL 13y ago

PCIe SSD.

ksec 13y ago

First, PC/Notebook Industry hasn't been on the performance tracks for a few years already. Peformance/Watts is what matters. Faster CPU with Higher IPC at Lower Power. Much Faster Graphics. Intel HD 3000 is Shit. Even the 4000 is crap. Only Iris Started to be good. ( But not Great ) PCI-E SSD. I believe 2011 MBP doesn't have SSD as Standard yet. And this new PCI-E SSD is likely to be based on PCI-E 3.0 rather then 2.0 as in previous MBPr. So Please. go and troll somewhere else.

Groxx 13y ago

Yeah, all that's different is: * new processor architecture (counting GHz isn't too useful any more, and it bursts to 3GHz+ anyway) * faster memory (1600 vs 1333) (DDR3 vs DDR3L (whatever that is)) (edit: DDR3L sounds like lower-power-usage DDR3) * newer graphics cards (intel 4000, "iris( pro)?", beefier nvidia) Not saying they shouldn't have done more - I'm simply avoiding that debate entirely. But you're not comparing Apples to Apples, and even if you were they're still upgraded.

necro 13y ago

Yeah I'm running a MBP 8.2 also (released February 24, 2011). 16GB ram 512GB intel ssd 1TB sata instead of cdrom 1GB AMD Radeon HD 6770M I always got the next best mbp but since this one I thought I was always going backwards on certain things so I have not upgraded. So a 2.5 year old laptop still has these advantages that are important to me... - non glossy display - I have 1.5TB storage now ( and can go higher now ) compared to the max 1TB that is offered now. - I'm still on snow leopard , primarily due to the multiple fullscreen idiocy in lion and mountain lion ( but that might change now in mavericks) My only reason to upgrade is that I would like the fans to come on less when I'm plugged into an external 30" display. It's a little disappointing that the last 3 mbp releases are not, or making me thing twice, about hitting the buy button.