POST A COMMENT

128 Comments

Back to Article

  • tipoo - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    I was hoping for liquidmetal and ditching the optical drive, like in this render

    http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordp...

    A man can dream, can't he? A man can dream...

    Anyways, I agree that they should have went with 7200RPM drives. In the grand scheme of things they only make a minute or two difference in battery life (pretty much nothing), aren't necessarily hotter running with newer drives, and some are just as quiet as 5200RPM. There was that rumor that the OS would be on a 8 or 16GB SSD like the MBA's SSD form factor, so the hard drives are even more disappointing.
    Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    If we had 16GB boot SSDs, the drive wouldn't've been a problem. It's a real bummer.

    But I guess if you can afford a MBP, you can afford a nice SSD for it.
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Wish they'd tell us which manufacturer's SSD it is.. Tiz crucial. I'd pay the $250 if the SSD is the OCZ Vertex 3 Anand just reviewed!! Reply
  • tipoo - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Yeah, its moronic to pay Apple for a mystery SSD, they don't name the brand or the series. Reply
  • quiksilvr - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    It's moronic to buy these laptops in the first place. The prices are a complete joke. Why would I even touch a MBP 13" with the vastly superior ENVY 14? Reply
  • zemek1s - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    As a envy 14 owner picking up a MBP 13 tonight, I can help here.
    First, the envy 14 has horrid battery life (about 3 hours, less if I'm running anything harder than chrome).

    Coming from a Santa Rosa generation MBP 15, I took a real hit on resolution and screen nice-ness by going for the envy. As a desktop replacement (I use it at work docked to two monitors) - its very nice, but I'll take the better virtualization (Fusion) in order to ditch this heavy envy and its miles-long power brick thing.
    Reply
  • halcyon - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    What's with all the hating?

    Some people actually *like* using OS X without hackintosh.

    If you don't like it, move along.

    Live and let live.

    By making hateful comments like that, you only show your own emotional reaction to something that is only a personal preference and not a war of the worlds :)
    Reply
  • akula2 - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - link

    I agree with you. Haters must STFU and cry elsewhere. People who are interested in Apple products will continue to buy them. Period. Reply
  • MrBrownSound - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Our minds wouldn't be able to handle it; it's better that we don't know. Don't you agree. Sure I would drop a tri-deuce grand for a MBP with that luscious vertex 3. Reply
  • TypeS - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    What OEM ever informs of you brand and model of HDD/ODD/Memory and so forth. . .?

    This is nothing new and questioning is just shows your ignorance. If you want to know what part you using, you either 1) buy with base options and upgrade with retail parts or 2) go build your own notebook/macbook.

    Good luck if you go with option 2.
    Reply
  • softdrinkviking - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    i think they were using the samsung stuff with the toshiba controllers if my memory serves.
    they're okay, but i also seem to remember that there was some performance degradation issues with those drives.

    here's the 2009 macbook pro review where anand talks about the ssd. (remove the space between the www and the .anandtechect, ect.

    http://www .anandtech.com/show/2783/apple-s-2009-macbook-pro-battery-life-to-die-for/6

    it'd be interesting to know if they stopped using the samsung ssd's, but i think it'll get mentioned in a full review if they do one.
    Reply
  • Wizzdo - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    This is a non-issue. Check the Apple site and you'll see that you can choose 7200rpm drives(albeit not as big) for no price increase. I think they listed the 5400 option first because of the larger sizes available. Reply
  • tipoo - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Where do you see them for no price increase? Reply
  • secretanchitman - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    if you configure the high end 15" mbp and 17" mbp! :) Reply
  • tipoo - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    Ah, I see it now. Its not there for the 13 inch, and you have to pay extra for the base 15. Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Mr. Cunningham, I am seeing a blank second page with an equally blank title. Either I am missing some interesting commentary or we have one too many pages.

    Aside from that, good to see Anandtech's perspective on the refresh. For next year, we'll probably get a MBA-esque redesign. That liquid metal stuff has to pay off eventually, right?
    Reply
  • zorxd - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    What is even worse than the 5400 rpm drive on such expensive hardware is the 4GB RAM. If I paid $2500 for a laptop, I would expect to have at least 8GB.

    Oh yes and lightpeak is a joke. I guess less than 0,1% of Mac users will use this feature before buying a new laptop.
    Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Point taken, however it is also the display port for this generation of MBP. So, a lot more people will use it than .1%.. Just not it's potential. Remember AMD64? Wonder how many people actually ran a functional OS in 64-bit on those original Athlon 64's. Reply
  • Sttm - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Even more silly is moving from 4gb to 8gb of ram costs $200. While retail that ram should only cost around $100.

    Though the store page only shows a $100 cost for moving to the 128 gb SSD. While retail that drive should be around $220.

    So I guess they have at least one decent deal.
    Reply
  • dagamer34 - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Yep, it's the only reason I got it. Even if you considered the default hard drive to be worth $100, it's well worth the upgrade. Reply
  • pukemon - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    Depends on what your definition of "functional" is - I'm thinking most people who ran a 64-bit OS on early Socket 940, 754, and 939 boxes were running some flavor of Linux or BSD, maybe Solaris, or WinXP (64-bit edition) possibly as servers more than as desktops.

    If you go back eight years or so, remember how expensive 4GB of DDR RAM was...
    Reply
  • MonkeyPaw - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    You have to start somewhere, and it's with the PCs. Why would any manufacturer make a Thunderbolt device if there were no PCs available? They wouldn't.

    While I don't care for the name "Thunderbolt" one bit (can't even be abbreviated well), the technology looks good to me. Long range, high speed, multiple use. If it can replace firewire, USB, HDMI, Display Port, and eSATA, good. Imagine having 6 of these on a notebook, or better yet, having to plug only one cable into your notebook that is daisy chained to everything else.
    Reply
  • Penti - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Thunderbolt is Intels brand and spec, but it's basically just a chip so you can connect PCI-E devices externally. It doesn't replace DisplayPort it's actually a DisplayPort which is connected to a chip that can talk pci-e over the cables to none display devices. It replaces expresscard in other words. It doesn't really replace eSATA, but it's an alternative (the box needs an sata-controller in the device) PCI-Express hardly replaces USB. It's only dual protocol, DP/HDMI/DVI/VGA-video or PCI-express.

    It's a important feature and it will show up in PC laptops under the same brand. Professional users certainly will use it. Btw, there's nothing stopping anyone from even producing Thunderbolt > eSATA devices. Even Thunderbolt > USB3 devices. So its a good replacement for Expresscard. Not more magical then that though.

    You won't see Thunderbolt memory-sticks.
    Reply
  • Penti - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    If you pay 2500 USD you get 8GB!

    At least with the 15" unit. The upgrade to the 500GB 7200 rpm drive is also free. Add in anti-glare though and it's $2549 for the high-end 15 inch with 8GB ram. $2249 for the low-end version configured the same. With the 17 inch it's the same with the 7200 rpm upgrade (500GB) drive is free to choice.
    Reply
  • cotak - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Are you a current Mac user?

    4GB is quite enough for OS X. To give you an idea at work at one point I was using a secondar white plastic iMac with a C2D inside and 256 megs of ram. And you know what? It was usable as a websurfing and outlook machine. It kinda sucked for the real work task that I was using it for but it worked just fine for play. It wasn't any slower than those netbooks out there anyhow and most of them have 1 to 2 gigs of ram.

    So 4 gigs for a lot of people will be enough. If you do anything media heavy yeah you'll want more ram but it's not a big chore to buy it yourself and put it in. All OEM RAM upgrades are rip offs anyhow be it apple's or Dell's or HP's.
    Reply
  • tipoo - Friday, March 04, 2011 - link

    A Core 2 Duo paired with only 256MB?! Reply
  • TypeS - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    And how fast was USB3 adoption again. . .? Reply
  • Exelius - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    I'd also like to see them ditch the optical drive. I haven't used the one I have in my MBP in the 9 months I've owned it; and the reduction in weight/size would be appreciated. USB optical drives are cheap if people really miss the feature that much. Reply
  • tomoyo - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Uh isn't that basically the macbook air right there? Except for needing some upgrades to sandy bridge. Reply
  • zhill - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Want more power than the meager MBA but don't need an optical drive?

    I found this OWC "Data Doubler" adapter to replace the optical with any HDD/SSD and it looks promising:
    http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other+World+Computi...

    for a while, seems like a perfect solution. I'd rather have an SSD + HDD than an optical drive, and this kit seems to be fairly decent.

    Anyone used one? Are they worth the $75 (or more with Sandforce SSD)?
    Reply
  • kmmatney - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    I used something similar in my Dell laptop, with an SSD boot drive, and a 320GB drive in the CD-ROM bay. The idea worked great - the only problem was my adapter was a little flaky, and sometimes I'd have to reboot several times to see the drive. I bought my adapter for $15 on Ebay, though. The general idea of doing this is great, IMO. Reply
  • ViperV990 - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Would I be able to hook up more than one external display to this? Reply
  • Penti - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    HD6000 series support daisy-chaining. If it works as advertised and in the mobile series I have no idea. It should.

    Which might even be one of the reasons for it being chosen for the Mac, nVidias gpus don't support daisy-chaining DP yet.

    You can't daisy-chain two dp 1.1a displays though. But there's really no reason why there shouldn't come converters so you can connect multiple dual-link dvi displays. Apple provides none though.
    Reply
  • relentlessfocus - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    I've read that the graphics card only supports 2 monitors, one being the built in display so, no, I don't believe so. Reply
  • Rasterman - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Since this is a standard feature in sandy systems its like they went out of their way to not include it. Reply
  • Cat - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    This is almost a deal breaker for me. Reply
  • nikclev - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    USB 3.0 is only standard because motherboard/laptop OEM's chose to add a discrete USB 3.0 controller. There is no USB 3.0 support in any of the sandybridge chipsets.

    That having been said, I don't see why Apple didn't do the same and add in a 3.0 controller. USB 3.0 is backwards compatible, so it doesn't even require any additional ports, they could still advertise two USB ports, with one being 3.0 and one being 2.0. I don't believe the cost is very much, and no apple product is "low margin" where a dollar or two makes or breaks profitability.

    There isn't a lot of devices for USB 3.0 yet, but that will come with time.

    But, Apple is big on deciding what to offer based on something other than what people like us think is nice to have.
    Reply
  • solipsism - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    I don’t expect Apple to use the Toshiba controller for USB3.0, but they could have just made multiple Thunderbolt ports with 2 of 3 being internal USB ports so it could have USB3.0 on new MBPs. Probably the fastest USB3.0 out there due to the Thunderbolt advantages.

    However, this does go against Apple’s desire to push Thunderbolt as the next generation high-speed tech when they are making USB on their Macs run at 3.0 speeds.
    Reply
  • Penti - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Don't really know what your writing, Thunderbolt is daisy-chainable, but there is nothing stopping a third party releasing a Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 converter that uses the NEC controller, or whatever connected to one x1 lanes (pci-express). It's what it's for. Macs will get native USB3.0 with Intels 7-series chipset with Ivy Bridge. Reply
  • seapeople - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Maybe it seems like they went out of their way to exclude it because... they did? Apple doesn't like USB, it's no secret. It's why their 15" laptop only has 2 USB ports and the 17" only has 3. It's why they are the first to move to this new light peak type interface. Reply
  • iblastoff - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    wtf are you talking about? First of all USB 3.0 is definitely not standard on sandy bridge machines. Secondly since when does apple "hate USB". It's pretty common knowledge they were one of the very first to push USB as a multi peripheral interface. Reply
  • tomoyo - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    What standard? No sandy bridge chipset supports usb 3.0 yet. Reply
  • KPOM - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    I'm sure Apple didn't include it natively because they want to push Thunderbolt. Steve Jobs was as dismissive of USB 3.0 as he is of BluRay. Technically, someone can release a Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 adapter. Reply
  • dagamer34 - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    Less dismissive, more like "Intel isn't supporting it natively, and we aren't going to pay the extra $15 for an external controller taking up space on our cramped motherboard" or something to that extent... Reply
  • fteoath64 - Saturday, February 26, 2011 - link

    "Technically, someone can release a Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 adapter".

    Nope, you still need a host USB3 chip on the motherboard. It is really a tragedy that Apple did NOT include USB3 ports on this, its a small chip and cost a few dollars.

    SATA3 would be very nice too but I doubt it has that either ! Double bummer.
    Reply
  • DtheMan - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    No mention that battery life has gone from 9+ hrs to 7 hrs. Not sure of the specs, but has the watt hours of the battery been decreased, or I'd be really surprised if this platform consumes more power than the prior one.

    You should get longer play time for videos, purely because of Sandy Bridge's video engine, but what about using this for work or other things. 8 or nine hours is a sweet spot, especially for long flights. It's a typical work day for many. Not sure why Apple opted to reduce this, other than perhaps cost
    Reply
  • Cat - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Apple's battery life test suite has changed. Reply
  • solipsism - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    To elaborate a little on Cat’s comment, Jobs mentioned they changed there testing methods when they introduced the MBAs. The battery size hasn’t changed, and may actually be a little longer in real world use due to the advantages of Sandy Bridge. Reply
  • KPOM - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    If you'll notice, they also reduced the stated life of the battery on the MacBook (which did not change one iota today).

    They changed their testing methods starting with last year's MacBook Air. They could do a better job of explaining it.
    Reply
  • dagamer34 - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    Battery testing has changed and the CPU itself uses more power on the 15"/17" (45W now vs. 35W previously) Reply
  • TareX - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    How does the screen compare to the HP Envy 14's that came with a 900p Radiance display? Reply
  • Exelius - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Apple's displays have always been best-in-class. My 15" MBP has a 1680x1050 display and the quality of the display is the best I've seen. The radiance displays HP used were generally considered to be on-par with Apple's displays. The high-quality display is a large part of why MBPs are so expensive. Reply
  • seapeople - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Correction, the high-quality display is ~5% of why MBP's are so expensive.

    It's not like the thing is IPS or something.
    Reply
  • nikclev - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    Interesting. I was under the impression that the display WAS in fact an IPS panel.

    Either way, I'm not an apple hater, but for my uses they are too expensive.
    Reply
  • Penti - Sunday, February 27, 2011 - link

    Well displays are actually pretty pricey even if they are not IPS. The anti-glare high-res upgrade is $150 extra to boot. I would guess the screen is as much as one-twelfth to one-tenth. For a repair the high-res anti-glare would cost, the same panel that is, around 300 dollars for the part. You couldn't get an equivalent for less then 199 USD. On cheap laptops the screen is a quarter of the price. Reply
  • Penti - Sunday, February 27, 2011 - link

    Of course there is a problem that screens like the dreamcolor display (LG.PH from HP) uses 15W. However you can get that display for $150. Which HP charges $550 for to upgrade. Reply
  • Penti - Sunday, February 27, 2011 - link

    I.e. it's quite a different matter @ 17". Reply
  • erple2 - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Technically, the displays have always been high quality, but not quite best in class. For the $2500 17" notebook variants, there is a Dell and HP that offers a better display ("Dreamcolor" from HP and the RGBLED display from DELL). Those are business oriented laptops, however.

    Similar story for the 15" ones from Dell/HP. Those are, however, the top displays available in mobile form factors for somewhere within reason of the MBP offerings.
    Reply
  • solofest - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    The high-end 13" has an i7, not an i5. Reply
  • RaLX - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    The 13" and 15" base models upgrades are like giving one step ahead in CPU and one step back in GPU... It's not worthy at all upgrading if you already own a 2010 model.

    These new models are probably cheaper to build for Apple and they sell it at the same price so the only real upgrade is the profits per unit for them...
    Reply
  • tipoo - Saturday, February 26, 2011 - link

    I don't think the 15 is a step back in base GPU, its about even. And the HD3000 trades blows with the old 13 inch 320M, at least in Windows. I look forward to some Anandtech testing to see if its better or worse. Reply
  • Matt Campbell - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    I was quite glad to see the addition of the HD Facetime camera, this is great for frequent Skype users where the existing camera is pretty lackluster compared to the standalone options from e.g. Logitech. The 5400 rpm HDD has slightly less power consumption/battery draw, heat, and likely higher reliability than the 7200 rpm drives - not arguing that it impacts performance, but it's not that surprising Apple didn't go with it as a default. Hopefully the SSDs will continue to fall in price and increase in capacity.

    I would have liked to see a higher resolution screen on the 13" model and a discrete graphics option in the upgraded model.
    Reply
  • seapeople - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Don't forget the 5400 rpm drive will be quieter.

    For a company that doesn't even like to use cooling fans due to the noise they create it's not mystery why they stuck with a 5400 rpm drive.
    Reply
  • Jumangi - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    1280 x 800 screen still...really? In 2011? Apple demands premium prices for their laptops yet in 2011 still sticks in a slow ass 5400 rpm HD and a low res screen like that? For a minimum of $1200?

    Apple users are suchs fools, seriously you guy are...
    Reply
  • seapeople - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    I find it amazing how many people will buy something like a new $35,000 Ford F150 for their suburban trek to work, or otherwise spend a minimum of $20,000 on a new car just because it looks nicer than the three-year old used version that sells for $10,000 and nobody gives a d@@m when people do this, and yet the moment someone drops an extra couple hundred bucks to get a nice-looking Apple laptop then the loonies pour out of the funny farm and start screaming bloody murder and claiming that Apple fan bois are the most wasteful scum of the earth etc...

    You could use some perspective here.
    Reply
  • Spazweasel - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    Seriously, yes. Green-eyed monsters, anyone?

    Apple buyers get their equipment to get things done, not to brag about. Fools? Yeah, the fools who are sufficiently grounded in the real world to be able to afford Apple products. The fools who think that you buy a computer is for computing with, not for filling with cold cathode tubes and LED-illuminated fans. The fools who think that Photoshop and Illustrator (purchased, not pirated) will get them farther in life than downloading a Crysis aim-bot. I have never seen a Mac owner dick-wagging about their computer, but come to a site like this and the e-peening about their PC's equipment list (or what they wish they could afford) is never-ending. I've lived in Silicon Valley since I finished college, some twenty-five years ago, and I've yet to see this mythical "Apple fanboi".

    And, before some 17-year-old who has yet to hold a job or pay for a computer with money they got from somewhere other than their parents goes off on "you're an Apple fanboi!", I don't currently own any Macs, but I do own several PCs and an iPhone 3G. It's just hardware, and no matter how cool someone may think bashing someone else's choice of computer is, the fact is that pretty women, studly guys (whatever you're into) and just about anyone worth respecting don't give a shit what someone thinks about nVidia vs. AMD.

    Until someone has actually worked at Intel, AMD, Apple, nVidia, or some similar company in a design or engineering position (i.e. actually contributed meaningfully to the products at hand), anything they have to say about how they themselves are cooler for choosing whatever is just being a poseur. Just like someone thinking a Harley t-shirt makes them into a big, bad biker that you'd better not mess with... yeah, sure, tough guy. Calling someone out for buying an Apple product doesn't make the fingerpointer's dick bigger. It just makes them a bigger dick.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    To pick up on your car analogy - that may only be the case in the US. Everywhere else in the world, people laugh at you for this nonsense.

    Though, I'm not saying there arent wealthy clowns in, lets say cramped european cities, who will buy BMW, Audi, Porsche or Mercedes SUVs to drive from their villa to the downtown office.

    However, my point would be that there are obviously alot more people buying apple computers with often sub-par components for alot of money and nobody gives a damn than there are sane people who will buy oversized, gas guzzling trucks for no good reason. At least in the real world, outside forums.

    Its all a matter of common sense really.
    Reply
  • seapeople - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    I don't think there are more people buying Apple computers than there are buying pick-up trucks. Though even if there were, it only takes one unnecessary purchase of a truck to waste more money than ~50 people buying macbooks.

    And of course "wasting" money on a macbook is debatable, considering there are few other options that give you better performance, features, AND battery life. Of course a lot of this is due to Apple's optimization of OSX, but it's true all the same.
    Reply
  • NICOXIS - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    even my 2007 Dell Latitude D430 has a 12" 1280x800 display !!

    I really don't understand how Apple is screaming around about it's retina thing and it capable of "updating" its lineup with such a crappy display.
    Reply
  • seapeople - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    My new 15" thinkpad for work has a 1366x768 display with a definitely terrible contrast ratio and viewing angles. It's not like this should be surprising anymore, though it is definitely sad. Reply
  • pukemon - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    I think a more legitimate gripe is: wouldn't it have made sense for Apple to just use the same panel from the 13" Macbook Air (which is 1440x900) instead of using the same screen they've been using for the last two years? That would be one less part they'd need to carry. Reply
  • robco - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    I find it odd that the base 15" still ships with a 256MB card in this day and age. You need 512 to run a large external display well. Not only that, but the integrated graphics have 384MB available, it will actually have more video memory running under the IGP than it does when it switches to the dedicated card. This lowballing by Apple is puzzling. As much as I love my current MBP, I couldn't justify the high cost again. Apple makes some nice gear, but if all you want is the larger display and dedicated graphics, it's just not worth the price premium. Reply
  • dagamer34 - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    IGP does not use VRAM as it is directly connected to the dedicated GPU. It isn't shared with the rest of the system. Reply
  • robco - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Someone needs to explain this to Apple. On the specs page, they list the Intel IGP as sharing 384MB with the system. In any case, I find it frustrating that Apple wouldn't at least spring for 512. You can barely find even a low-end card that ships with less, much less an $1800 laptop. Reply
  • Surkov - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    If these MacBook Pros are running on the 6gbps ports, should I be able to throw a Vertex 3 in there and enjoy the fullest potential of its throughput?

    Also, I know there's no TRIM in OSX
    Reply
  • johnspierce - Saturday, February 26, 2011 - link

    Apple has announced OSX Lion 10.7 will have TRIM. It's about time! Reply
  • jamesst - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    It looks like Apple does indirectly mention Sandy Bridge's QuickSync capabilities. Under the details page for the processor they say the following (on Apple's MacBook Pro web page):

    "An integrated video encoder enables HD video calls with FaceTime, while an efficient decoder gives you long battery life when you’re watching DVDs or iTunes movies."

    That sounds like QuickSync to me.
    Reply
  • dagamer34 - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    QuickSync is an encoder, not a decoder. Intel's GPU's have had hardware H.264 decoding for quite some time. Reply
  • jamesst - Monday, February 28, 2011 - link

    No, sorry, you're completely wrong. Quick Sync is both an encoder and decoder. In fact, transcoding is one of the primary features of Quick Sync, it speeds up both the decoding and encoding. Reply
  • Heathmoor - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    How can Thunderbolt/Light/Peak support HDMI and DisplayPort if their max bandwidth of these other interfaces can exceed 10 Gb/s?
    Can the move from Mini DisplayPort to Thunderbolt compromise video performance?
    Reply
  • jamesst - Monday, February 28, 2011 - link

    Thunderbolt is two channel and each channel can carry 10Gbps. In fact, I've read that one channel is dedicated to DisplayPort while the other is used just for PCIe transfers. They don't talk much about the channel used for DisplayPort since you can't use that for general-purpose peripherals, that's why they just say that it has 10Gbps for high-speed data transfer. Reply
  • n0othing - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    I remember buying my $2100 macbook pro back in 2007 (still running like a champ and overall nicer than a lot of laptops on the market today). 2.4Ghz c2duo, 4GB ddr2, 500GB/7200RPM, 256MB 8600M GT, and their first LED backlit LCDs to boot. I bought mine when they had just refreshed and I even got a free ipod nano + printer out of it.

    To be honest, the specs on this revision are pretty solid-- but they seem to lack the wow factor I like to see when apple does major refreshes (note: not every refresh makes my panties wet).

    I would have liked to see USB 3.0 ports, an nvidia gpu (completely fanboi based, the 6750 is solid, best bang for buck), 8GB of RAM standard on the upper tier models, and perhaps a modest price break (say, $100).
    Reply
  • AmdInside - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    I agree. Just not wowed. The only thing that these specs could have done to wow me would be if they dropped the MSRP by 25% or more which I know wasn't going to happen. Where's USB 3.0? Why can't Apple have a dedicated HDMI port? Expresscard slot? Blu-ray? Higher resolution screen? More memory (I picked up 8GB for $70 recently for my Dell XPS 14 and MBP so it can't be that expensive right now)? 7200RPM hard drive? Better speakers? More video memory? Reply
  • dagamer34 - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    HDMI port: http://www.amazon.com/Mini-DisplayPort-Adapter-fem...

    ExpressCard slot is only on the 17" because few people actually use it.
    Reply
  • KPOM - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    What I and a lot of Mac enthusiasts are most concerned about is how the Sandy Bridge graphics perform on basic gaming. A lot will depend on the drivers for the HD 3000. Most of us consider it a step backward from the 320m in the outgoing model, and there is actually a lot of opposition on Mac boards to the lack of a discrete GPU in the 13". Many would have given up a built-in optical drive to get a discrete GPU.

    The other disappointment is the low-res screen in the 13". The MacBook Air actually has a higher-res screen.
    Reply
  • tipoo - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Agreed, I wish they would ditch the optical drive for room for a discreet card and a larger battery to balance it.

    I hope Anandtech extensively tests the 13 inch's graphics performance compared to the last one.
    Reply
  • shiznit - Sunday, February 27, 2011 - link

    As a mac enthusiast you should know that Apple resists to give lower end models of a particular line features that would make you less likely to purchase a more expensive model. For example a 13" MBP with the 1440x900 screen and a discrete gpu makes the 15" almost pointless, unless you really need 1680x1050 and a quad core. The 13" MBA can get the good screen because there is no better model. It's just good busines.

    Btw, Apple would have converted me if the 13" MBP had the MBA's screen.
    Reply
  • undermined - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    shouldn't it be 1680x1050 instead of 1650x1080 on the chart? Reply
  • AmdInside - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    I love Apple products but in this refresh, they could have done so much more and they didn't. I have little interest in upgrading mY MBP 13" not because I can't afford it but because the faster CPU speed alone is not enough reason to justify the upgrade. My next MBP purchase will likely be a 15". Hopefully next year, the laptop will be more interesting. Reply
  • erple2 - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    Hmm.. If not for a faster CPU and GPU (though I don't know if the integrated Intel HD 3000 is faster than the 320M, but I suspect it's at least on par), then what is the point of ever upgrading? The CPU upgrade is 2 generations newer - going from a Core 2 Duo to a Sandy Bridge based CPU is a pretty hefty bump in power.

    Ultimately, if your current MBP 13" handles all of the loads that you can throw at it without any problems, then you're right. However, that's true with any computer/thing.
    Reply
  • MrBrownSound - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Is the intel i7 2.0 GHz quad core - so much different than the i7 2.2 GHz quad core?

    I mean it's a 250 difference, I know it's not a huge amount considering that your already going to spend a cool couple grand, but still.

    I'd would love to see some real world benchmarks ANANDTECH! thank you
    Reply
  • gc_ - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=50067,53463,...

    Guess: higher enterprise demand for the 2.2GHz quad processor (Intel i7-2720QM ) means Intel prices it maybe $200+ more. Its virtual machine, encryption, and security features are not available on 2.0GHz quad processors (Intel i7-2630QM, Intel i7-2635QM).

    • Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d)

    • AES New Instructions [encryption]

    • Intel® Anti-Theft Technology

    • Execute Disable Bit
    Reply
  • johnspierce - Saturday, February 26, 2011 - link

    The $250 is not just for the 2.2 i7 -- it also has a massively better video card in the AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1GB GDDR5 memory vs. the AMD Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5. Also comes with either the 750gb 5400 drive or the 500gb 7200 drive vs. the 500gb 5400 drive in the base model. $250 doesn't sound so bad with those 3 significant upgrades. Reply
  • gc_ - Sunday, February 27, 2011 - link

    Actually, looking at Apple's US website today,
    there is a $250 difference to upgrade from 2.2GHz to 2.3GHz, not 2.0GHz to 2.2GHz.
    (The 2.0Ghz version of the MBP15 is not offered with a CPU upgrade, and the difference to the 2.2GHz version of the MBP15 is $400, not $250, with additional features that johnspierce noted.)

    Intel's list price is difference is:
    US$568 for i7-2820QM (2.3GHz to 3.4GHz, 8MB cache, quantity 1000)
    US$378 for i7-2720QM (2.2GHz to 3.3GHz, 6MB cache, quantity 1000)
    ------------
    US$190 difference

    Apple's purchase price difference from Intel is likely even greater:
    The i7-2720QM is in the Apple standard models
    Apple will buy it in much greater quantity than the custom-only i7-2820QM.
    Thus, Apple probably gets a much better discount on the i7-2720QM than on the i7-2820QM.

    http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=52227,50067,...
    store.apple.com
    Reply
  • da585 - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    Hope Anandtech could give us more detail about the reviews. I have some questions as shown:
    • SATA 3 or SATA 2?
    • Battery life
    • Screen Quality…
    I feel sad that Apple doesn't shrink the MBP's weights.
    Reply
  • KPOM - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    On MacRumors, some buyers of the new Pro have confirmed it supports SATA 3. Reply
  • seapeople - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    It either supports SATA 3 or Apple is going to have to replace everyone's motherboard when Intel finally fixes their SB boards.

    I'm guessing it's SATA 3.
    Reply
  • jamesst - Monday, February 28, 2011 - link

    A marketing manager/head (apparently fairly high level) said that Apple isn't using the defective Intel Platform Hubs in any of the new MacBooks, so the SATA bug isn't an issue. Reply
  • johnspierce - Saturday, February 26, 2011 - link

    +1 on Battery life. Laptopmag already has a review out showing the new MBP has about 40% less battery life compared to last year's model, but CNET's review shows it having about 15% *better* battery life. Which is it?

    I will only trust the results when Anandtech does the review! :D
    Reply
  • TheUsual - Thursday, February 24, 2011 - link

    I wish I'd known 9 months ago they would have the quad core sandy bridge in there, I would have held off. All the rumors led me to believe they would stay with dual cores. I'm still paying on my 2.6 dual core MBP. I'm sure it's worth much less now, oh well. It's still a great laptop. Reply
  • PubicTheHare - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    Anand,

    In your preview review of the 15" MBP, you said to wait for the next revision of Arrandale with a smaller die size. Would this latest refresh be what you were referring to?

    I want to know a few things:

    1) WHEN can we expect TRIM in OSX and is the OCZ Vertex 3 the drive to get for Mac?
    2) Is there hardware acceleration of Flash in the AMD gfx card drivers for the 15" MBP?
    3) How hot does the chassis get under heavy use?
    4) How easy is it to replace RAM, HDD/SDD?

    You guys always do the best reviews of Mac stuff!

    Thanks, man. Hope the jetlag is gone.

    Regards,

    -O
    Reply
  • PubicTheHare - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    Sorry, I meant "previous review" !

    I'm fried from the gym :(
    Reply
  • KPOM - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    I've read that developers who have installed OS X 10.7 report that it includes TRIM support. Reply
  • kevith - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    I find it great, when companies cut the corners in the storage department, i.e. RAM and physical drive, since these are the only parts you can upgrade in a laptop on your own.

    Which is always cheaper, and especially in the case of Apple hardware.

    Take the cheaper 15", put in a decent SDD and another 4 GB of RAM, and you're much better off.
    Reply
  • rachenbrazil - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    Will Intel HD 3000 be better than Nvidia 320M ? Reply
  • erple2 - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    Based on Anand's review of the "new" mobile Sandy bridge:

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4084/intels-sandy-br...

    It appears as though the HD 3000 is a little bit faster than the 320m in the MBP 13" Core2Duo P8600 model. At least, when paired with the 2820QM variant. The MBP 13" refresh includes up to a 2620M (dual core) processor, it looks like, which has the same integrated graphics card as the 2820QM chip.

    However, the processor in the 2620M is, I think, substantially faster than the P8600 included in the older MBP 13".

    BTW, I'd LOVE to have a 13 foot MBP! Though I think that "Book" would have to be dropped from the name...
    Reply
  • tipoo - Saturday, February 26, 2011 - link

    MacTable Pro! Reply
  • Zensen - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    the worse thing about this upgrade is the blatant arrogance of leaving out USB 3.0. I love the lightpeak technology now known as thunderbolt but with usb 3.0 being backwards compatible its just a bloody shame really.

    Physically this laptop looks exactly the same as the last iteration.
    Reply
  • johnspierce - Saturday, February 26, 2011 - link

    Since Intel is not supporting USB 3.0, I'm betting it will die. If this was just Apple pushing lightpeak I would be in agreement with you, but with Intel pushing it I think we just heard the death nell for USB 3.0.

    I personally cannot wait for a Thunderbolt Compact Flash reader so I can get my 16gb of photos from my D300 to my computer in 20 seconds instead of 5 minutes!
    Reply
  • Penti - Sunday, February 27, 2011 - link

    They is with the 7-series chipset with Ivy Bridge sometime next year or so.

    I don't think all devices will move to a PCIe interface. And your CF card isn't going to pull 820MiB/s :D The fastest ones are specced at 90MB/s. You ~50MB/s card should not have that much of a problem with USB 2.0 =P
    Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    There is only $100 difference between the twoparts, yet crApple is charging an extra $300 for the upgrade. Oh, yeah it does include a hard drive upgrade also, but what's that worth, $10? Reply
  • Zebo - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    less vibration, less noise than 7200rpms IME ...But really I'd get an SSD for none of either.

    I'd like to see a review from anand
    Reply
  • tipoo - Saturday, February 26, 2011 - link

    In my experience the 7200RPM's of today can be as quiet, cool, and vibration free as the 5200's. This isn't 2005 where 7200RPM means a constant clacking machine. Reply
  • johnspierce - Saturday, February 26, 2011 - link

    Agreed. Apple must have bought a warehouse full of 5400 rpm drives. Reply
  • vision33r - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    I've owned maybe 20-30 PC notebooks in the past, very few hold resale value over time.

    Take a Dell XPS 16 that cost $1200 optioned out. Over a year, you have to put a ton of upgrades such as memory and SSD just to get rid of it for $700.

    My old Macbook Pro 15, over 3 years old bought for $1200 used, I've sold it recently for $1400. The only upgrade was a 500GB ($60) upgrade from 160GB.

    Not to mention the LED-backlit 1440x990 display was crisp and was one of the 1st notebooks at the time to have LED back-lit and back-lit keyboard and multi-touch touchpad.

    Not a single PC or laptop today can hold value this good.
    Reply
  • seapeople - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    You sold a 3-year-old MBP for $1400? Was it purchased by a blind boy in Rhode Island, by any chance? Reply
  • dav1dz - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    Umm.. I thought they upped the memory reader to SDXC? Reply
  • jcompagner - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    Apple is the only one (until now and maybe it stays the only one??) to have 16:10 screens!!

    17" with 1920x1200, why oh why can't i choose any where else that same screen... :(

    I want the same screen but not a apple.. But i think my 4 year old Dell Vostro 17" will still not really be replaced any time soon, and i really want to spend money on a new system, but i can't stand it to loose 10% of my vertical pixels! Vertical pixels are the most important pixels!
    Reply
  • Kahlman79 - Friday, February 25, 2011 - link

    I saw that on the 15" that I want there is a cpu upgrade for $250. This would boost the clock speed from 2.2 ghz. to 2.3 ghz. I was wondering if this is at all worth it or if I should just stay with the factory specs. Reply
  • tipoo - Saturday, February 26, 2011 - link

    The higher end model also has a much faster graphics chip (3x the shader cores) and 1GB video memory (4x the base) in addition to the processor bump. Reply
  • johnspierce - Saturday, February 26, 2011 - link

    I think Kahlman79 is talking about the $250 bump from the 2.2ghz processor to the 2.3ghz. They have the same 1gb graphics chip. The 2.0ghz one has the 256mb chip. So the 2.3ghz really is $250 higher for that .1ghz bump. It has a much larger cache though. Reply
  • fteoath64 - Saturday, February 26, 2011 - link

    "It’s worth noting that Apple’s new laptops were apparently not delayed much by the SATA bug discovered in the 6-series chipsets last month – this likely means that Apple is shipping the affected B2 stepping parts but only using the 6Gbps ports."

    First thing is a notebook motherboard is likely soldered with only 2 sata ports and there is no Marvell SATA chip to handle SATA3, unless these MBPs have that designed in. Unlikely!.

    Then, it would be afflicted by the B2 stepping bug. Apple will deny this publicly but will get a lot of flak for it. It might offer to exchange it later for people with Applecare. SO it might not affect so many units but still the low-end unit was a Macbook before and it did not get much respect in most stores.
    Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Sunday, February 27, 2011 - link

    Kudos to Apple for the nice CPU upgrade and especially for Thunderbolt, which gives them an interface PCs won't have for another year that is miles ahead.

    I have to agree, the inclusion of 5400rpm drives makes me laugh out loud, literally. Really. In premium laptops like these, can't spend another $2 to make a significant performance increase in your system?

    All you laptop makers out there, one of my "benchmarks" for laptops is whether or not they carry a 5400 or 7200rpm hard drive, at a minimum. It's a pass/fail test. Guess which one fails?

    ;)
    Reply
  • ioannis - Sunday, February 27, 2011 - link

    is it me, or does the bezel look thinner in this picture? have they reduced the bezel on the new line? Reply
  • hlovatt - Monday, February 28, 2011 - link

    Any date for your full review; wondering which one to buy. Reply
  • (ppshopping) - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link

    welcome Reply
  • jb510 - Saturday, March 05, 2011 - link

    Any change of benchmarking the Apple OEM SSD soon? Or has anyone seen a benchmarking I've missed? Reply
  • lili53 - Thursday, March 10, 2011 - link

    welcome Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now