MacBook Pro 17" released

[Civrock]

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/ (not updated yet, it's in the Online Store, though)

5x faster, 36% brighter, still 1-inch thin. - $2799

---

2.16Ghz Intel Core Duo

17-inch widescreen display
1680 x 1050 resolution
2.16GHz Intel Core Duo(1)

1GB (single SODIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
120GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 256MB GDDR3 memory
One FireWire 400, one FireWire 800, and three USB 2.0 ports

[BTs_Mysterio]

Notable to early complainers is FW 800 (+ 1 FW 400, 3 USB 2.0) and the 8x Dual layer drive. The question remains whether the MacBook Pro 17's GPU will come stock frequency or undeclocked like the 15.4

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

With towers preceding Laptops in EVERY other apple computer release upgrade, anyone know what the reason for the delay on towers is for this gen? Makes no sense to me. Unless theres a problem we dont know about..

[*DAMN Mauti]

Well I guess it's the 64bit difference and as a consequence the RAM limitation, which would be a step back in the high end market, where applications can need much more than 4 Gbyte RAM.

Bye,

Mauti

[Civrock]

With towers preceding Laptops in EVERY other apple computer release upgrade, anyone know what the reason for the delay on towers is for this gen? Makes no sense to me. Unless theres a problem we dont know about..

There is no problem, we're simply waiting on new and much more powerful desktop processors which Intel's working on at the moment. There are speculations about which one of the roadmapped ones it is and I'm reading summertime for release.

[Ethion]

I just can't believe, that we went back to 32bits.
But I guess, Intel's 64 bit processors are waaaayy too warm to be used.

[BTs_Mysterio]

I just can't believe, that we went back to 32bits.
But I guess, Intel's 64 bit processors are waaaayy too warm to be used.

Wrong. No need to guess at why, here's the answer:

The Next Gen Intel Desktop chip: http://www.mikeshardware.co.uk/RoadmapQ306.htm#Conroe

Apple wouldn't put a lame P4 in a Mac as it would go against everything sane. The 64Bit Intel's aren't that good right now, so that is also a factor. Now, as for your warmth theory, the G5 is far warmer than your average chip and besides that, the G5 enclosure of today can be liquid cooling equipped. Expect announcements on the towers between August 7th to 11th - WWDC [coincidentally the same time the P5 (Conroe) will be out].

Oh yea, and to Sheix; the Core is the first chip of the general architecture, but isn't really a desktop chip, especially not Powermac (workstation) level. Though, for the record, the MacBook Pro 15s held their own against the G5 towers in Final Cut Studio/Motion/Aperture tests.

[Ethion]

Mysterio, so you're stating that IBM's G5 processor is warmer then Intel's 64 bits?
From what I've heard/read, is that the intel's 64 bits(which they have scraped?) was so warm, that it became useless? And that they wouldn't be any good until they went down to 65 nm.

Oh and, I agree. P4 would be useless for Apple.

[BTs_Mysterio]

Mysterio, so you're stating that IBM's G5 processor is warmer then Intel's 64 bits?
From what I've heard/read, is that the intel's 64 bits(which they have scraped?) was so warm, that it became useless? And that they wouldn't be any good until they went down to 65 nm.

Well, perhaps you believe Intel means Pentium, because they have a good architecture in Itanium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium) that simply didn't take off because the PC community can't handle architecture shifts. You can hardly state that some inner development chip that never hit market is relevant here. This is all besides the point, we aren't talking about laptops or iMacs here, we are talking about a tower. There is no chip too hot for a tower (even proven by the nitrogen cooling done in 2000 to OC a Pentium to 5 GHz).

[Ethion]

Mysterio, so you're stating that IBM's G5 processor is warmer then Intel's 64 bits?
From what I've heard/read, is that the intel's 64 bits(which they have scraped?) was so warm, that it became useless? And that they wouldn't be any good until they went down to 65 nm.

Well, perhaps you believe Intel means Pentium, because they have a good architecture in Itanium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium) that simply didn't take off because the PC community can't handle architecture shifts. You can hardly state that some inner development chip that never hit market is relevant here. This is all besides the point, we aren't talking about laptops or iMacs here, we are talking about a tower. There is no chip too hot for a tower (even proven by the nitrogen cooling done in 2000 to OC a Pentium to 5 GHz).

Damn it Myst, you always twist my damn words into something crap. I read some things, I don't go into it all like you do with fuckin everything. As i'm not going in a tech coriculum bs. I read the stuff that I get access to, then it's question on how I take interest of reading through it all. As around one and half years ago I didn't care about Intel processors, only that they were using stupid pentium that is shit.
I said stuff in the above post. I put a fuckin question mark in the end of of a sentance.(as seeking your fuckin approval).

And wtf? "no chip is too hot for a tower" Sure, there isn't. But tell me one company that has an output over 10.000 units a month/year that sells nitrogen cooled computers with a overclocked Pentiums.


geesh..

[BTs_Mysterio]

Putting a question mark on a statement doesn't change the context really. But on your point about 10k nitrogen units, actually there is a niche market for such computers (I can't find a reference at this time). Now, in all honesty, do you believe Intel would sell a chip that couldn't be used because it was too hot? That sounds really stupid to me, besides as I mentioned early their adaptign their experience from Itanium onto this next generation yonah (and prior pentium m/III) architecture to make it the best.

Your original post was flawed anyways; the PowerBook G4s weren't ever 64-bit and this is the topic of discussion here. Though now you will say iMacs were 64-bit G5s and I will respond by saying that iMacs have 2 ram slots, you can't max out 32-bit addressing with only two ram slots. All in all the steps forward well outweigh any negative steps.

P.S. You shouldn't use those "curse" words so frequently as it can only harm your cause; which in this case would be adding to the discussion.

[Ethion]

I never stated that the (PB's)G4 chips were 64 bits, I was commenting on why they went back to 32 bit processing instead of going all in with 64, but sure. Intel got a nice plan for themselves, and it's hard to put a 64 bit processor into such a small casing and not put a big fan on it.

The thing is, I don't see the point of the "regular" user to get a computer that uses a turbine to cool itself down. Sure, you can say that the regular user will instead get a less demanding computer.
But as I see it, the common user is a gamer or a guy sitting in a office day in and day out.

You will probably say that the itanium never were meant to put into office use, or into a gamers hand, that they would use it in their servers and what not. But it gets expensive with processors like Itanium, and that's probably why they canceled it anyway.

P.S. And I can't actually believe the nitrogen units "story" until I see an actual reference of it.

P.S.S(or what ever it might be) You try write a second-hand language at night, with a little dyslexia.
You just bug me out.

I'm going to bed now, I can argue with you tomorrow.

[PUNiSHER™]

I can't wait for the new MacBook's (ibook), they probably aren't gona be near as good as the MacBook Pro's but at least they will be cheaper in price.

[BTs_Mysterio]

I never stated that the (PB's)G4 chips were 64 bits, I was commenting on why they went back to 32 bit processing instead of going all in with 64, but sure. Intel got a nice plan for themselves, and it's hard to put a 64 bit processor into such a small casing and not put a big fan on it.

The thing is, I don't see the point of the "regular" user to get a computer that uses a turbine to cool itself down. Sure, you can say that the regular user will instead get a less demanding computer.
But as I see it, the common user is a gamer or a guy sitting in a office day in and day out.

You will probably say that the itanium never were meant to put into office use, or into a gamers hand, that they would use it in their servers and what not. But it gets expensive with processors like Itanium, and that's probably why they canceled it anyway. and to clarify, a gamer is not a regular user. Gamers tend to overdo their computers and sacrifice a lot of sanity to make their "rig" get 2 more FPS. The G5 was a really good start, but IBM shifted away from developing it into it's potential and let it become one of the hottest/msot power hungry chips in recent years.

Most people in office jobs would be happy with a Pentium M based HP sub-tower; these aren't exactly the people the powermac or MacBook target. The Mac Mini perfectly fits this market, but then again who would want a powerhouse that can run windows and OSX while being professional and space efficient. (Rant against idiots in IT departments)

P.S. And I can't actually believe the nitrogen units "story" until I see an actual reference of it.

Most 64-Bit chips are actually on smaller dies as it isn't actual a physical size difference, just a extra couple of controllers and such messes. Actually, the iMac G5 rarely used it's fans on any audiable level because the airflow over the chip was well designed, the G5 was hot, but that was a design flaw that didn't directly relate to 64-bit processing.

The Itanium was meant for office and server use (then expanding into general public), one of the reasons it was so expensive was that it had low yields and lower (yet) sales. They haven't cancelled Itanium and it's still an influence (a positive one) on chip design today. I would consider it when Intel began a turnaround from the MHz war that left their chips as efficient as Russia in a Tom Clancy book.

P.S. I can't find a direct reference to the more complete (non-project) nitrogen computers from earlier, but here is documentation of some students doing the same thing, except a bit on the large side and.. well being made on a table... out of wood. http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/12/30/5_ghz_project/

P.P.S. I would take that up, except I don't have a second language. (Take that French Canadian attempts at make us learn in school)

[BTs_Mysterio]

To separate my posts so I can talk a little about the MacBooks.

There have been recent rumors that the MacBook will be all core duo. The lost likely scenario is this:

Mid to late May, Intel releases the 2.33 GHz Core Duo and drops prices on other models. Apple Computers is effected thusly:

        iMac: 1.83, 2.0, 2.13                        MacBook Pro 15": 2.0, 2.13 (*)             [All duo]
        MacBook Pro 17": 2.33                      MacBook 13.3" (iBook): 1.66, 1.83        [All duo]
        Mac Mini: Duo - 1.66 [may get 1.83,
            but all duo unless solo price drops]

Furthermore I would expect a X1300 to be used in the MacBooks only because it seems standard in that range. Historically speaking, the iBook has always been far ahead of the Mac Mini in terms of GPU (9200 vs 9650) so I would expect this to stay the same.

Also, according to recent reports they are likely to offer the MacBook in colours (whether it will be metal [see iPod Mini] or plastic [See iMac original] is not known). This will likely be a high selling computer if Apple markets it well.

[PUNiSHER™]

Is the X1300 Video Card any good for gaming?  Or I should say is this going to be good enough to play newly released games?

[BTs_Mysterio]

I would call it decent. About on par with 6600. Below are some benchmarks:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=172&type=expert&pid=10 (Doom + more)

I guess good around. Apple may do something like did with the last iBooks. iMacs had a 9600 with ~128MB VRAM, so they give the iBook a 9550 ~32MB VRAM. In reality what's most likely is a ATI card that would compare thusly:

(iMac)       ATI • X1600 w/ 128-256 VRAM (higher clock rate)
(MacBook) ATI • X1?00 w/ 64-128 VRAM (moderate clock rate)

Overall, I really don't believe the Intel Integrated will make it into the MacBooks as it would put it extremely out of class with $999+ Laptops.

[Civrock]

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/48AAEE3A287A6213CC25714F000230BC

[BTs_Mysterio]

I skimmed through that report and I don't quite see their point as all that valid. My main objection is with the mention of Woodcrest in workstations (Powermac/Mac Pro) as it would be a bit odd to put a server processor in the flagship tower of Apple; not that I'm against 2 four core processors

I think the end of Pentium 4 was seen when this benchmark test showed the horrid truth:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/05/25/dothan_over_netburst/page11.html

A Pentium M beating up the desktop processors (when put in a desktop and mildly over clocked) was a great sign back then; especially since that's when the Apple + Intel talk began to be rumored.

[ P.S. It's funny that Apple's built in spellchecker doesn't know the word Pentium ]

[BFG]

the 17 inch is a thing of beauty. Mate of mine caught a glimpse of a guy with one on the train the other day and looking over his shoulder he said the thing was blindingly fast.

I just can't wait for the pro towers