Why the 13" MacBook Pro still uses Core 2 Duo CPUs

I dont agree with this article at all. i think apple's engineering would have no trouble fitting an i5 in there. no way I would buy that new 13" apple update. all they are doing is milking core 2 duo for every dime since its cheaper. they are not having problems selling these machines. at all. and they know it. there is no reason to spend more money on an i5 and all the stuff they would have to change to make the same money they are already making anyway. Updating the graphics only and calling it a day is the cheapest way to refresh the product for new interest.

you will see core i5 processor in the 13 inch model. eventually. just not right now when its selling just fine without it.

I have a 2,4 ghz unibody Macbook (the bastard pre-Pro version). Does anyone have any intel or insight as to whether the 320M will offer noticeable gaming improvements (MW2) over the 9400M? I am torn between the 15" I7 MBP, which I will never be able to use in economy on a plane (guess I'll buy an ipad at the same time :) ) over the portability of the 13". In addition, the battery life of my current MB is not sufficient for a transatlantic flight, a source of constant frustration.

Thanks,
Rich

Has anyone here even tried the new 13" 2.66 Macbook Pro? Well, my niece bought one last week and it was fortunate that the Apple Store even had one in stock -- apparently they're in great demand.

I set up this MBP for the niece, and sat alongside it was a black 13" Macbook. I didn't do any benchmarking, but the MBP is an absolute screamer, the screen is visibly better and even after 5 hours of continuous use, the MBP was running cool -- various temperature monitoring apps recorded nearly 30°C difference in temperature in processor-intensive tasks -- not once did the MBP fans come on.

I'm seriously thinking: Delay purchase of iPad, sell the black MB and get the 2.66 MBP.

Does the 13" run FCP studio well enough if it is fully specced? Apple employees at the store seem to be conflicted on this matter.

@matt aromatorio: Wait a minute. Are you defending Apple for being cheaper because of having less specs? The way you're saying how expensive the Sony Z is like the PC fanboys bashing Macs for being too expensive. Try configuring the 13" MBP with SSD, and the price difference with the Z is only a few hundred dollars, considering the Vaio Z has discrete GPU, SSD in RAID, and Core i5. Let's face it, Sony did a good job with the Z, and having not enough space on the 13" MBP is a weak excuse.

What would be more reasonable reasons are:
-Thermal. The Core 2 chips have lower TDP than the Core i3/5/7 chips. Considering how the unibody is, maybe Apple engineers think it would be too risky to put in a Core ix chip.
-Price. Let's face it, Apple's first and foremost interest is better margins. Maybe they see the pricing of the Core ix chips are not low enough to satisfy their margins.
Those reasons are acceptable. Not having enough space is weak sauce.

I think the Core 2 Duo is having efficiency and the technology devices, which are used in the core 2 Duo is really very advanced and prolific.

Those arguments about why Apple couldn't fit a modern processor into the MBP 13 range from amusing to insipid when you consider what Sony managed to accomplish with the Vaio Z.

- 13.1" Full HD 1920x1080 LED-Backlit Display
- Intel® Core™ i7-620M processor (2.66GHz) with Turbo Boost up to 3.33GHz
- 512GB (256GBx2) Solid State Drive with RAID 0 Technology
- 8GB (4GBx2) DDR3-SDRAM-1066
- Blu-ray Discâ„¢ Player/Burner
- Verizon Wireless Mobile Broadband Built-In

The Vaio Z weights 1388 gram. The MBP 13 is significantly heavier and offers a fraction of the power. You could definitely say that American engineering is inferior to Japanese (and frankly, it is), but you simply can't say it's impossible to cram an i5 processor into the logical board of 13" laptop.

I was a bit disapointed when they released the updates...not that I'm going with a 13" but, I've been doing my homework recently and...

The 620m (i7) can only handle ddr3-1066 memory while the 720QM(i7) (standard entry for PC i7 laptops) can handle ddr3-1333 memory. 2 core vs 4 core, 4MB L3 cache vs 6 - 8MB L3 cache (8MB for the 820QM which is WAYYYY more $$$). Also is the new "QPI (QuickPath Interconnect Architecture)" going to be faster than the standard FSB (front side bus)?

My real question is: Do I pay more for a Mac with a slower processor, "bus speed", less RAM, etc (but better OS IMHO), or buy a WIN7 with top-of-the-line specs and run with freeware virus/spyware/firewall software?

While all the comments are valid.

I think many people who have been holding on to their Powerbook 12" can finally get an upgrade.

The Nvidia integrated graphics chip is more than capable to do a lot of work. I'd even reckon it can handle a little Final Cut Pro editting. Obviously not hours and hours of video, but a short clip will do.

Intel's graphics chips however are sad. MacBooks going backwards with lousy Intel graphics can only mean bad news. If the next 13" MBP update goes the route of Core i3 and replaces the Nvidia chip with an Intel chip, I will jump with the sinking ship and buy the current model (which would then be the old model). Using a 2007 white MacBook 2.16Ghz with Intel GMA 950 really blows. Like really blows. Even with 4GB RAM. Really shows the limitations. While I am certainly doing really well and pushing this baby to its limits every single day, I can only imagine how fast the Nvdia chips are.

I'm surprised OpenCL isn't mentioned at all in this article.

Apple heavily supports it and if they are trying to make all of their laptops ready for OpenCL if computing does go the way Apple hopes. Since the Intel HD isn't OpenCL capable, its a step backwards.