Macbook refresh rumours....?

I'm posting this from the future.

Apple store unit? Or did you rush out and buy one? :D
 
Apple Store in Regents Street had the whole kit.

I'm setting it up at the minute - I'll review it and give you performance stats shortly. Honest.

XBench stats below - bear in mind I've also got Win7 in Parallels running, and office 2011 installation on the go:

26ca7bdf4dc3a9878f6c41b7143bc3d0.png
 
bigredshark said:
I don't get it - every review says the graphics are on a par yet people have somehow made up their mind it's a backwards step? Don't let the facts get in the way...
Click to expand...
Though I agree, I expect that the performance and rate of improved driver support (specifically for gaming) over time, is going to be lacking from a Intel integrated part over a nVidia/AMD solution.

I can completely understand people waiting for the 13" MBP to move over to Core i being disappointed and waiting a year since last refresh only to be given a product that is as good (if not slightly worse) than what was already in there...

I know Apple (and its fans) are well known to charge/pay through the nose, but on a forum like this, its not shocking to see people not being impressed - its nearly as bad as nVidia relabelling last gens cards for this gen and expecting people to purchase them...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
From what I've read the HD3000 performs slightly under the 320m and then of cause you have to factor in driver support. Again I'd rather have my 13" MBP with Nvidia 320m.
 
Does anyone know how the Intel HD 3000 compares to an nVidia GeForce 9200M GS? I'm no good with hardware to compare, if it's better then at least I can take solice that it is better than my current laptops graphics abilities.
 
RKO said:
Does anyone know how the Intel HD 3000 compares to an nVidia GeForce 9200M GS? I'm no good with hardware to compare, if it's better then at least I can take solice that it is better than my current laptops graphics abilities.
Click to expand...

It's better.

The folks on MacRumors are saying the Intel in general terms will be nearly as quick as the 320M in the old 13" MBP. Given the 320M was an upgrade from the 9400M in the earlier machine it's safe to say it's loads better than a 9200M.
 
MagicBoy said:
It's better.

The folks on MacRumors are saying the Intel in general terms will be nearly as quick as the 320M in the old 13" MBP. Given the 320M was an upgrade from the 9400M in the earlier machine it's safe to say it's loads better than a 9200M.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought and for the uses I have for a laptop, it seems it'll more than suffice. :)

My only concern was all the swishy transitions coming in Lion, I don't want lag. ;)
 
ps3ud0 said:
I can completely understand people waiting for the 13" MBP to move over to Core i being disappointed and waiting a year since last refresh only to be given a product that is as good (if not slightly worse) than what was already in there...
Click to expand...

I think people taking that attitude are being fairly illogical myself, it's a big processor upgrade (two generations) and is far more customisable than the previous generation (SSDs, a i7 dual core CPU etc). It's a bigger better upgrade than the previous refresh was (9400 to 320m was about all then).

The graphics certainly haven't improved, but they haven't measurably gotten worse either. The only people who have reasonable cause for complaint are gamers, who are about as far as you can get from Apple's target market here anyway.

For the vast majority of consumers and pro's this is a good upgrade which will improve real world performance, I think if they wanted better graphics still they need to accept this was never the laptop for them and they need to look elsewhere. It's not for them, they can be disappointed but it's not a rubbish upgrade just because it doesn't satisfy their niche interest.

All of which misses the fact the 15 and 17 get real, serious performance boosts, given the 13" was always a bit of a neglected sibling I think it's done all right really.
 
I'm not a fan of 13" Laptops but I'm considering a 13" MBP as I won't need it for gaming but just for portability etc, I would be able to get it slightly cheaper as well as I'm a student it's just getting the funds together
 
RKO said:
That's what I thought and for the uses I have for a laptop, it seems it'll more than suffice. :)

My only concern was all the swishy transitions coming in Lion, I don't want lag. ;)
Click to expand...

It'll be fine. OS X has done swishy transitions for many years, they even worked OK on the GMA950 on the early Intel MacBooks and that was pants. That's where a lot of the "OMG Intel GMA = FAIL" hysteria is coming from.

Outside of clever accelerated effects in the Adobe Pro apps you'll only likely hit problems if you want to game on the Intel 3000 in native res with high detail.
 
MagicBoy said:
It'll be fine. OS X has done swishy transitions for many years, they even worked OK on the GMA950 on the early Intel MacBooks and that was pants. That's where a lot of the "OMG Intel GMA = FAIL" hysteria is coming from.

Outside of clever accelerated effects in the Adobe Pro apps you'll only likely hit problems if you want to game on the Intel 3000 in native res with high detail.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing hooking it up to a 1920x1080 monitor will still be fine? OS transitions are as graphically taxing as I go these days. :)
 
RKO said:
I'm guessing hooking it up to a 1920x1080 monitor will still be fine? OS transitions are as graphically taxing as I go these days. :)
Click to expand...

The 17" MBP uses a essentially the same IGP with a 1900x1200 panel to save on battery life. It only fires up the ATI card when required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom