It appears Mac lovers might be in for a treat in the near future, following some digging by Apple technology site Applesana.es.Having browsed through the configuration files of the latest build of Mac OS X, the most recent operating system out of Cupertino, the site claims to have found references to two new Macbook Pro models.
It is reported that the 10.6.2 update to the operating system (build 10C531) hold the configuration files in which Applesana made the discovery. Within the files references to Macbook Pro 6.1 and Macbook Pro 6.1b are made. The current crops of Macbook Pros are designated numbers from 5.1 through to 5.5.
Although speculative, it is not unfathomable to think Apple will soon update its Macbook Pro line, given that it was not updated during the latest Apple product refresh, which saw iMacs gain the powerful Intel Core i5 and i7 processors.
The Intel Core i7 mobile processor in particular offers greater performance than any of its predecessors. Specifically, the i7 mobile has the technology to increase clock speed by up to 75% to match the workload of the system, and has strong performance with multi-threaded applications.
The last Macbook Pro update took place in June 2009, which featured Intel's Core 2 Duo processors and nVidia GeForce 9400M/9600M GT video cards.
Image hosted by Applesana.es
Last edited by shockz on 26 Oct 2009 - 06:46
Although it'll no doubt make me a bit annoyed too, given my Oct 08 model.
The 9600GT is what makes the MacBook Pro so thin and quiet. If they stuck something more powerful in it would be very loud and the weight would increase due to the extra cooling required.
Also a 'Pro' machine does NOT need anything near a GTX260M its not for playing computer games its for video editing, music production, image editing and Computer Generated Imagery (Modelling). These are fields where you absolutely do not need anything above a 9600GT.
If you want something to play games get an Alienware.
Also a 'Pro' machine does NOT need anything near a GTX260M its not for playing computer games its for video editing, music production, image editing and Computer Generated Imagery (Modelling). These are fields where you absolutely do not need anything above a 9600GT.
Are you serious? Video editing and CGI rendering require even better video cards than what most gamers want. Why do you think both nVidia and ATI sell $1000+ cards specifically marketed for those people? They need power to do those tasks in a reasonable amount of time. I'd say most MacBook Pro users don't play games for a variety of reasons, and would most likely need extra power for what Macs are "designed to do", like edit video and related things. If they want to label their product as "Pro", it should probably be designed for professionals. Professionals don't need something light and pretty, they need something powerful and useful. Who needs 8 hour battery life when you're going to be editing video or doing graphics work? I think you're going to be in an office or studio, not at the coffee shop or in your car. Apple's so worried about looking the part that they neglect actually putting things that people need into their products.
Last edited by Raikou Tch on 26 Oct 2009 - 09:39
Also a 'Pro' machine does NOT need anything near a GTX260M its not for playing computer games its for video editing, music production, image editing and Computer Generated Imagery (Modelling). These are fields where you absolutely do not need anything above a 9600GT.
Are you serious? Video editing and CGI rendering require even better video cards than what most gamers want. Why do you think both nVidia and ATI sell $1000+ cards specifically marketed for those people? They need power to do those tasks in a reasonable amount of time. I'd say most MacBook Pro users don't play games for a variety of reasons, and would most likely need extra power for what Macs are "designed to do", like edit video and related things. If they want to label their product as "Pro", it should probably be designed for professionals. Professionals don't need something light and pretty, they need something powerful and useful. Who needs 8 hour battery life when you're going to be editing video or doing graphics work? I think you're going to be in an office or studio, not at the coffee shop or in your car. Apple's so worried about looking the part that they neglect actually putting things that people need into their products.
ATi and NVIDIA sell professional cards (NVIDIA has 95% of the Pro market with its Quadro line) because they have 1.5GB+ Memory configurations. This is not what RAID0 is talking about. He is talking about putting a consumer GTX260M for GAMING (Again not a Quadro). In to a MacBook Pro. This card is totally unnecessary. Also you can get 9600GT Dies in a Quadro version with 1GB+ of Memory. It's the memory that is important here not the GPU. These are very very expensive and are not needed to work effectively in any CGI apps.
The reason they have 8 hour batteries is for when people are on the road. Photographers who want to quickly sample their images. Small-time directors who want to make sure they got the shot they wanted whilst shooting on location. The MacBook Pro's now have SD Card slots included and those were put there for Photographers.
In any case, the 9600m gt is just a minor update of the 8600m gt, or you could say, a clearly outdated graphic card.
People have forgotten that laptops are meant to be portable. They're not what you should use in a 'pro' environment unless you're on the road, in which case you don't want something that's absolutely massive.
Want a good graphics card? Get a desktop. Not a laptop that acts like one, and is the size of one as a result.
In any case, the 9600m gt is just a minor update of the 8600m gt, or you could say, a clearly outdated graphic card.
A lot of people here make out that the 9600GT is crap. But it isn't I can play games on my MacBook Pro at native resolution and medium to high graphics detail. And it handles OpenCL fine also. And if you didn't know any better the GTX260M and GTX280M ? They are 8800GT's rebranded. They aren't even 200 series parts.
Anyway, the 9600gt is a woefully outdated chip which could be replaced with something much faster with a similar power envelope (on a newer manufacturing process)
With OpenCL, hopefully higher resolution screens, and the huge push for mini displayport, it only makes sense to throw in a better card.
Don't forget that its almost certain these computers will still require an impossible amount of work to upgrade ram and replace battery. In addition to the lack of extensiblity via ExpressCard (USB3.0 is not far away) Even with the matte option, these computers aren't going to be attractive to graphics professionals.
Anyway, the 9600gt is a woefully outdated chip which could be replaced with something much faster with a similar power envelope (on a newer manufacturing process)
With OpenCL, hopefully higher resolution screens, and the huge push for mini displayport, it only makes sense to throw in a better card.
Don't forget that its almost certain these computers will still require an impossible amount of work to upgrade ram and replace battery. In addition to the lack of extensiblity via ExpressCard (USB3.0 is not far away) Even with the matte option, these computers aren't going to be attractive to graphics professionals.
RAM is easily upgraded. Flip open bottom latch. Remove cover. Remove inner cover. Remove screws. Insert RAM. Items required: Phillips screwdriver.
So you didn't know about the RAM upgrade. Makes one wonder what else you don't know about when it comes to Macs.
Since performance started to come at the cost of noise and power consumption. On a laptop.
Why would a pro user not care for these things? I own a MacBook Pro, and if it had a much more powerful graphics card, I'd sure wish it to keep a 9600M as an option. And I'd never use the hotter and better performing one, despite paying for it. Bad deal if you ask me. Go stationary if you use your computer as part of some CGI work... Since when were laptops meant for processing intensive tasks with limited fan exhausts and power? I doubt people use laptops, EITHER on Win or Mac for 3D modelling on the street with a touchpad or 15" display. *sigh*
As for hardware upgrades on the Macbook line by using smaller transistors for a similar performance at the same power consumption, sure, that'd be nice. Let's wait and see what'll happen next then.
Last edited by Jugalator on 26 Oct 2009 - 15:24
In any case, the 9600m gt is just a minor update of the 8600m gt, or you could say, a clearly outdated graphic card.
how can going from 32 to 64 shaders be a minor update?
the minor update would have been from 8600m to 9500m, but this is not the case.
So you didn't know about the RAM upgrade. Makes one wonder what else you don't know about when it comes to Macs.
Um What? Why are you talking about the Late 2008 MacBook Pro? The current Mid 2009 refresh no longer has any bottom latch or cover. Its a single bottom panel that requires removal to upgrade ram or harddisk or anything for that matter.
I don't know why I need to justify my experiences or list my purchases to someone as hostile as you.
And Jugulator I agree, some workflows would rather have a more power efficient chip but, the 9600gt is nevertheles an insulting choice as its outdated AND on a old fabrication process (65nm) while ATI and NVIDIA have jumped over to 55 and even 40 for their mobile chips most of which both outperform the 9600gt while maintaining similar if not less power draw.
The reason they have 8 hour batteries is for when people are on the road. Photographers who want to quickly sample their images. Small-time directors who want to make sure they got the shot they wanted whilst shooting on location. The MacBook Pro's now have SD Card slots included and those were put there for Photographers.
nVidia's CUDA has made it a lot easier to render images and decode/encode video quickly with their video cards. I think if Apple wanted to market their products to people who do these things for a living, they would put in a high-performance video card in their system. The GTX 260's power would be great for these tasks, and would have another 512MB of VRAM to work with. the 9600M is old and not that great. An SD card slot is great but a lot of photographers still use CompactFlash. Other laptops offered by companies such as Asus are able to put in 4GB RAM, a mobile i7 CPU, and a GTX 260M for less than $2000. Sure it might not look as pretty but it would destroy the MacBook Pro in every usable way except for battery life. All new DSLRs have big high-resolution LCDs so you can see what you took as soon as you take it. I see what you're saying, but it's certainly not as expensive to implement as you say. Apple just feels like they can charge whatever they want because people will buy it.
And Asus works on new eeePCs.
He's making the point that eventual hardware refreshes are hardly news. The same comment I made earlier, which was deleted, fyi.
Unless it's Apple making the hardware refreshes. the Mac's unique position means that it'll naturally make headlines. Any Apple news is big news, anyway. The market at large is interested. The industry is interested. Wall Street is interested. The Mac is differentiated as the only consumer computer where software is tied to the hardware - Apple makes the whole widget. Not HP, not Dell, not Lenovo. Big differentiaton + big mindhsare = headlines.
Microsoft releasing software is hardly news too, should we stop making threads about it?
An Apple CPU refresh is no more newsworthy than Dell or Asus doing the same.
I bought my laptop a year and something ago and it came with a 9400M for about 800 bucks.
it would be nice to see an i7 in the MBP's but I don't think it will happen since it will shoot up the price pretty significantly (unless they just make it an 'upgrade option' in place of standard).
a video card upgrade is much more plausible to me, especially if Apple really is giving OpenCL priority.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.