Tuesday, June 5th 2007

Apple MacBook Pro Says Hello to Santa Rosa

by
malware
 Discuss (24 Comments)
Apple today updated its MacBook Pro line of notebooks. Built on the Santa Rosa platform, MacBook Pro now offers the latest Intel Core 2 Duo processors, memory up to 4GB, up to 250GB of hard drive space and high-speed GeForce 8 graphics in a stunning, lightweight, aluminum enclosure that is just one-inch thin. The new MacBook Pro is available in 15-inch models (1440x900) with a new mercury-free, power-efficient LED-backlit display and a 17-inch widescreen model (1680x1050) with an optional high-resolution display. All models include a built-in iSight video camera for video conferencing on-the-go, Apple's MagSafe Power Adapter that safely disconnects when under strain, and built-in 802.11n wireless networking for up to five times the performance and twice the range of 802.11g. Apple Store is now offering three models: the entry 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, 15-inch MacBook Pro for $1,999; the 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 15-inch MacBook Pro for $2,499 and the 2.4GHz, 17-inch model with a suggested retail price of $2,799. For further information, head over to the product page on Apple's website.
Source: Apple

Related News

Add your own comment

24 Comments on Apple MacBook Pro Says Hello to Santa Rosa

#2
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Is the graphics card crippled in these new ones too?
Posted on Reply
#3
Dippyskoodlez
newtekie1Is the graphics card crippled in these new ones too?
Performs fine for me.

I would prefer it cut down... laptops at this speed really do burn after a long while of gaming.

I wouldn't say its "crippled".
Posted on Reply
#4
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Well at least some of these apple prices have come down. eventually, Im hoping Apple will realize that overcharging doesnt help their cause
Posted on Reply
#5
Dippyskoodlez
WarEagleAUWell at least some of these apple prices have come down. eventually, Im hoping Apple will realize that overcharging doesnt help their cause
?? I don't think you realize what apple all puts into these boxes..

If dell had the same option available to them, it would be quite a bit higher...
Posted on Reply
#6
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
DippyskoodlezPerforms fine for me.

I would prefer it cut down... laptops at this speed really do burn after a long while of gaming.

I wouldn't say its "crippled".
An x1600 that performs worse than an x1400 isn't fine in my book, that is crippled in my book.
WarEagleAUWell at least some of these apple prices have come down. eventually, Im hoping Apple will realize that overcharging doesnt help their cause
Apple's prices have been pretty reasonable on some things recently, especially when you consider the form factor they maintain. Though they still overcharge for their upgrades, like $750 to go from 2GB to 4GB when you can go over to newegg and get the same 4GB for $400 and sell the 2GB that comes with the laptop on ebay.

The base configurations are pretty reasonably priced though.
Posted on Reply
#7
nflesher87
Staff
Dippyskoodlez?? I don't think you realize what apple all puts into these boxes..

If dell had the same option available to them, it would be quite a bit higher...
second that

and dang it, at least you caught the core 2 proc...I hopped on board when the MBP first came out and just have the core duo
Posted on Reply
#8
Dippyskoodlez
newtekie1An x1600 that performs worse than an x1400 isn't fine in my book, that is crippled in my book.
Its not quite that "slow".

But then again, I guess I'm the only one that doesn't use their laptop for world record breaking :rolleyes:

I mean srsly, who in their right mind would do something other than GAMES?
Posted on Reply
#9
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
DippyskoodlezIts not quite that "slow".

But then again, I guess I'm the only one that doesn't use their laptop for world record breaking :rolleyes:

I mean srsly, who in their right mind would do something other than GAMES?
The x1600 isn't going to be breaking any world records anyway.

If you are buying the machine and don't plan to play games, that is fine. However, people out there do buy computers to play games, as crazy as that sounds, and when they see a machine with a graphics card advertised as an x1600, they should get that level of performance. Which is why I asked my original question about the new ones.

I like how when I ask the question you get ignorant and try to make me look like the stupid one for worrying about game performance. I mean srsly, who in their right mind would do something other than WORK?
Posted on Reply
#10
Dippyskoodlez
newtekie1I like how when I ask the question you get ignorant and try to make me look like the stupid one for worrying about game performance. I mean srsly, who in their right mind would do something other than WORK?



I know, right?

Game performance, inside of parallels, at 1280x900 is perfectly fine for me, so wheres the problem?

The only difference is a few less frames for me, and an extra half hour of battery life.

Pros:
Better battery life.
More flexability via parallels/OS X/linux at the same time.
OS X base, so spyware is a non issue.
Boot camp is available. Atitool can overclock it if you want.
Beautiful hardware.

Cons:
Cant turn on that uber leet pixel shader!
-10fps!


I bought this to play games. I bought this to be mobile. I bought this for work.

It suits all of those much better than dell's "Gaming system".

I haven't found a game that isn't playable on this. Hell, Doom 3 running all Power PC code (i.e. rosetta) is perfectly playable.

You can enjoy the games at a more than acceptable performance level... and get excellent features with it.

No it won't satisfy a tweakers wet dream, but if you wanna get that extra 5-10fps(that don't make a difference), then why would you be using a laptop, to begin with?
Posted on Reply
#11
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Again, all points I am not arguing. The problem is that I paid for an x1600, I want an x1600, not some crippled card that Apple calls and x1600 but underclocked so low it doesn't beat an x1400 in performance. Apple might as well have put an x1400 in the damn thing, it gives all the same benefits. Granted, it doesn't sound nearly as nice as x1600 to the marketing department.

I don't care if the performance is good enough for you, it isn't for me, and it is a lot bigger of a difference than 10FPS. When I changed my Macbook's x1600 from Apple's 310/278 to the recommended 470/470 CS:S's stress test gained an extra 40FPS@1440x900. The difference was litterally the difference from the game stuttering slightly at max settings to the game being completely smooth and playable. And of course other more GPU intense games benefitted even more.
Posted on Reply
#12
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
True, prices have gone down some, which is what I posted, but not acceptable to me.

You are right in that I dont know what apple puts in here. Im not debating it, but customers are price conscious, thats all Im saying.
Posted on Reply
#13
Dippyskoodlez
WarEagleAUYou are right in that I dont know what apple puts in here. Im not debating it, but customers are price conscious, thats all Im saying.
People have argued this since the dawn of time...

But its just a Porsche Vs Corvette arguement.

Completely a matter of taste.

The corvette may be better at X, the porsche is better at Y, but it is only better when you give it a driver that knows how to use it.
Posted on Reply
#15
wazzledoozle
The previous models are now in the refurb section at considerable discounts. :D
Posted on Reply
#16
v7100
Cheaper and better then ASUS G1s. Not to mention MBP is way better than Acer Aspire. Acer is slightly cheaper.

I will buy one and install vista on it!
Posted on Reply
#17
Wile E
Power User
newtekie1Again, all points I am not arguing. The problem is that I paid for an x1600, I want an x1600, not some crippled card that Apple calls and x1600 but underclocked so low it doesn't beat an x1400 in performance. Apple might as well have put an x1400 in the damn thing, it gives all the same benefits. Granted, it doesn't sound nearly as nice as x1600 to the marketing department.

I don't care if the performance is good enough for you, it isn't for me, and it is a lot bigger of a difference than 10FPS. When I changed my Macbook's x1600 from Apple's 310/278 to the recommended 470/470 CS:S's stress test gained an extra 40FPS@1440x900. The difference was litterally the difference from the game stuttering slightly at max settings to the game being completely smooth and playable. And of course other more GPU intense games benefitted even more.
They downclocked the X1600's in the iMacs as well. I used AtiTraytools to get 525/525 out of mine.
Posted on Reply
#18
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
v7100Cheaper and better then ASUS G1s. Not to mention MBP is way better than Acer Aspire. Acer is slightly cheaper.

I will buy one and install vista on it!
ew!
Posted on Reply
#19
Dippyskoodlez
Wile EThey downclocked the X1600's in the iMacs as well. I used AtiTraytools to get 525/525 out of mine.
Does this work in Vista?
Posted on Reply
#20
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
I do like Macs look and their ability to handle graphics test. Its been a good while since I used a mac though, but I must admit, it was the first computer I used :)
Posted on Reply
#21
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
mac notebooks are amazing and i want one! i was playing around with an old g3 15inch notebook last weekend and it was awesome!
Posted on Reply
#22
Dippyskoodlez
Easy Rhinomac notebooks are amazing and i want one! i was playing around with an old g3 15inch notebook last weekend and it was awesome!
They are. I was going to confirm the "underclocking" theory, but I have yet to find a program that will read ati clockspeeds correctly. :wtf: I'll just have to ask w1zz to make a macbook pro build for vista.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 17th, 2024 22:22 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts