Ivy Bridge Core i7 used in NEW Macbook Pro versus a PC deskotp or iMac?

[Qbah]

http://ark.intel.com/compare/64899,65523,64900

The mobile one is either the left or the right one. Desktop part in the middle.

Base clock difference is rather significant (the mobile one turbos to 3.3GHz max, the desktop model runs at 3.5Ghz and turbos to 3.9GHz). 2MB less cache too on the mobile part.

EDIT: This is the CPU forum, but let me just tell you the GTX650M is anything but capable of running any games at 2880x1800. It has 384 Kepler cores, a GTX680 has 1536 and clocked significantly higher too. Memory bandwidth is a similar level of gap. A GTX680 is a nice match for 2560x1600. A GTX650M is going to choke to death on any game at native resolution. Will probably melt the MacBook on its way to Hell too 😛

 

[cmdrdredd]

220pi, while impressive, is useless on a laptop display. For editing you need a large monitor that can provide good sized images otherwise you're staring at super small images on a small screen which isn't ideal for anything other than e-peen. High-res (Apple-like res) on a tiny screen doesn't mean you get more real estate it just means your images use more pixels than they would otherwise because you have to increase their size in order to get anything done.

I don't know how tiny the images you use are or how crappy your editing is as a result, but anybody who knows anything about editing knows that you do two things:

1 - get a large high res IPS monitor, and
2 - get a smaller monitor to the side for everything else.

If you want to waste money because you're under the impression that a high-res Apple display (made by Samsung) at 15.6" is any better than a high-res IPS monitor for the same task then that's your choice. Just be aware that you're doing it wrong.

Finally, you seem dead set on buying an overpriced crApple laptop anyway so why are you asking for advice if you don't like what you hear? I believe the uneducated users of Apple have their own forums you can hover just don't expect them to provide anything useful or technical. But maybe they've got pictures!

I work in the graphics industry and when we do a layout for prepress on our Mac and output it to either our proofer or the Heidelberg Suprasetter we need good displays. We don't want to go back in and retouch the colors and cost time and money. For this reason we don't touch Apple displays. No iMacs here and everything is calibrated. Resolution and PPI mean little if the colors are not accurate.

You seem intent on insulting someone's intelligence rather than dealing with facts. It seems your world view is to assume a person's ignorance if they are able to appreciate a product that a company you dislike creates.

I worked for Intel for years building systems and testing their chips. I have won multiple national and local grand prize awards for my editing and cinematography. I have homebuilt over a dozen PCs and am currently in the process of building another. I have built my own home server which serves both my Windows and Mac systems. I own multiple non-Apple IPS displays for my business, and am well aware that Apple sources Samsung (as well as Sharp panels). I am clearly aware of what one needs to edit video on and achieve color accuracy (which includes an external broadcast monitor).

Yo man...if you worked for Intel why do you even need to ask this stuff? Shouldn't you know everything about the CPUs???

I'm confused to the max.


BTW: Saying you left in 2006 doesn't work because anyone who worked for Intel would have made at least one friend or know one person they could ask this stuff. Then get an answer direct from the horses mouth.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I am looking at POSSIBLY building both a PC desktop to make a hackintosh, as well as getting the Macbook, upgraded to the $3000 config (2.6ghz, 16gb RAM, 512gb SSD) with a 15% employee discount from a friend.

The 2.6GHz version is the 3720QM. It performs like a 2600K:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-2820qm-sandy-bridge-mobile,2838-8.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3720qm-ivy-bridge-mobile-ultrabook,3185-4.html

Difference is there, but not that significant between desktop and laptop chips anymore. Besides, the 3720QM isn't the top Ivy Bridge mobile.

 

[Arkaign]

The 2.6GHz version is the 3720QM. It performs like a 2600K:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-2820qm-sandy-bridge-mobile,2838-8.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3720qm-ivy-bridge-mobile-ultrabook,3185-4.html

Difference is there, but not that significant between desktop and laptop chips anymore. Besides, the 3720QM isn't the top Ivy Bridge mobile.

Yeah stock performance will be fairly close. Desktop users have the advantage of being able to run at ~4.8ghz+ pretty much constantly, with faster ram and dramatically superior video performance. The new MBP is pretty damned solid for a mobile device, but it would be crushed by something less expensive unless you need that resolution (getting that on a desktop is fairly pricey of course). I wouldn't touch that resolution on a 17" with a gun to my head though. It's just tiny to the point of ridiculous for my uses. A 30" at 2560x1600 is about perfect imo, for a 17" I like 1600x900 or 1680x1050.

 

[Cpus]

This is what I am looking for. So there's no difference in the mobile version from the desktop version other than clock speed, this is good to know.

Call it a retina display or not, 220ppi in 15" screen is phenomenal, not to mention the improved contrast ratio, black levels, and 75& glare reduction. OSX is a great OS, and 10.8 looks to add a lot of nice features. The design is unparalleled. It's not all about speed when purchasing a laptop. It's about a product, and this includes look, design, feel, quality of engineering, display, weight, battery, etc. I need FCP X for video editing, as well as Adobe CS6. I prefer OSX to Windows for managing non-work related tasks such as photos, integrating with my iDevices, etc. The software and integration Apple has is unmatched IMO.

I am looking at POSSIBLY building both a PC desktop to make a hackintosh, as well as getting the Macbook, upgraded to the $3000 config (2.6ghz, 16gb RAM, 512gb SSD) with a 15% employee discount from a friend.

lol just get a cool case, a nice screen, and download Mac OS on it an your fine and with a much more powerful pc.

 

[2is]

Retina display...lol. Dont believe their marketing.

If you overclock a desktop cpu to 4ghz it will be tons faster

ok, we won't call it Retina, we'll call it a 2880x1880 15.4" IPS display. What ever you want (or don't want) to call it, It kicks ass!

 

[Kingkazma]

even though the "retina" screen IS amazing (or at least, if its ipad 3 quality) its 15 inches....

seriously working in 220 ppi is annoying as hell. it might be fun to consume stuff from but from creating just get your butt on your desk and work on with a couple monitors.

on the other hand i'm still fuming over apple's abandonment of the mac pro.

SERIOUSLY? WESTMERE?

 

[2is]

even though the "retina" screen IS amazing (or at least, if its ipad 3 quality) its 15 inches....

seriously working in 220 ppi is annoying as hell. it might be fun to consume stuff from but from creating just get your butt on your desk and work on with a couple monitors.

on the other hand i'm still fuming over apple's abandonment of the mac pro.

SERIOUSLY? WESTMERE?

According to this...

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/11/david-pogue-new-imacs-and-mac-pros-coming-probably-in-2013/

Mac Pro update coming sometime next year.

 

[dsc106]

http://ark.intel.com/compare/64899,65523,64900

The mobile one is either the left or the right one. Desktop part in the middle.

The 2.6GHz version is the 3720QM. It performs like a 2600K:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-2820qm-sandy-bridge-mobile,2838-8.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3720qm-ivy-bridge-mobile-ultrabook,3185-4.html

Difference is there, but not that significant between desktop and laptop chips anymore. Besides, the 3720QM isn't the top Ivy Bridge mobile.

Yeah stock performance will be fairly close.

THANK YOU, this is exactly the kind of info and links I was looking for! :thumbsup:

It's just tiny to the point of ridiculous for my uses. A 30" at 2560x1600 is about perfect imo, for a 17" I like 1600x900 or 1680x1050.

seriously working in 220 ppi is annoying as hell. it might be fun to consume stuff from but from creating just get your butt on your desk and work on with a couple monitors.

Mac OSX is resolution independent, meaning the icons and text scale. The physical size of everything can be set at 3 different sizes, so you can work with everything at a "normal" size but just extra sharp, which does make a difference when editing fine details in photos and judging focus.

on the other hand i'm still fuming over apple's abandonment of the mac pro.

SERIOUSLY? WESTMERE?

AGREED. It's pathetic and downright insulting to even bother slapping a "new" tag on there. Not even USB 3.0 or thunderbolt? No new GPU? This is exactly why I am building a Hackintosh, and looking at transitioning out and back to Windows 7/Adobe CS6 for editing. They don't seem to care much about the Pro market at this point, despite rumored claims to the contrary.

However, the idea of relying solely on a Hackintosh for my work is somewhat unsettling, and I do need a new laptop as it is, so if something goes wrong with my hack-mac I am thinking I may be able to fall back on the macbook pro and still have a great mobile editing station that's a native Mac.

Yo man...if you worked for Intel why do you even need to ask this stuff? Shouldn't you know everything about the CPUs???

I'm confused to the max.

Uh, really? Some of us don't have the time or desire to keep up with all of this... that's why I come here. I did know everything about the CPUs when I was there, back when AMD was killing it and conroe was the hot thing being worked on and tested.

anyone who worked for Intel would have made at least one friend or know one person they could ask this stuff. Then get an answer direct from the horses mouth.

Why would I go out of my way to call some old colleague I haven't seen in 6 years to ask a question about a part number and benchmarks when I can post here? I mean, really?

For this reason we don't touch Apple displays. No iMacs here and everything is calibrated. Resolution and PPI mean little if the colors are not accurate.

You don't touch *Apple* displays? or you don't rely on IPS displays for the final output? Apples IPS displays are among the best on market, though not worth the extra cost IMO. I don't like how they don't even have physical brightness controls, and even though they have richer colors I do prefer the matte finish on other displays. It's true though, for broadcast color accuracy I need an external broadcast monitor that is calibrated correctly.

That said, resolution/PPI make for a beautiful display to look at and work on, and in terms of IPS displays on the market Apple's rank at the top of the pack.

ok, we won't call it Retina, we'll call it a 2880x1880 15.4" IPS display. What ever you want (or don't want) to call it, It kicks ass!

exactly 😀

 

[philipma1957]

why do you want a 2880 by 1880 display for a 15 inch laptop?

next question all 3 cpus offered for the retina are pretty close since they will not overclock.

what do you want to do wit the quad cores. As i have read the gear the ssd's are soldered in so do you want a 256 or a 512 gb ssd.

if a 256gb ssd is big enough just buy the low priced one 2199.

its cpu is 2.3 to 3.3

the top of the line is 512gb with a 2.7 to 3.7 cpu. cost is 3049 so for 1 k your cpu gets a small boost and the ssd goes from 256 to 512 gb. I say buy the smaller cpu and follow this thread i posted on mac rumors how to mod a lacie little big disk into a better ssd type then the stock one they sell. or look at my thread on using the seagate t-bolt drive.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1317577

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1280118


I use the lacie with 3 samsung series 470 ssds gives me a 768gb raid0 boot drive the fourth slot is used with a 600gb intel ssd. very stable .. the seagate t-bolt with a mushkin 240gb deluxe works very well. does not make a lot of sense to buy the macbook pro with the bigger ssd or with the slightly faster cpu. using the lower priced one for 2199 minus 300 discount makes some sense i guess. if you have some coin to spend.

 

[2is]

If you've experience a high DPI screen you wouldn't have to ask.

 

[infoiltrator]

Please note ANY notebook CPU or GPU are low watt parts with limited cooling.
And part numbers across the two do not correspond performance wise.

Do not have benchmarks.
You should be able to compare the benchmarks for an I3 2100 (see BENCH) with any I3 laptop benches. I doubt they are close in "real world" performance.

It may have changed but I remember the rule as it costs three times more than a desktop for a laptop to match it.
Also the 680M is the first laptop GPU update in a "long" time, the GPUs are a generation or two behind, which pushes efficency very much behind. IE battery life considerations "slow" capabilities.

That is how I understand it anyway.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The higher turbomodes also only kick in on AC power I believe.

 

[philipma1957]

If you've experience a high DPI screen you wouldn't have to ask.

I have experience with a high dpi screen and that is why I asked the op.

 

[2is]

I have experience with a high dpi screen and that is why I asked the op.

Interesting. So have I And that's why I don't need to ask.

 

[dsc106]

ANY notebook CPU or GPU are low watt parts with limited cooling.
And part numbers across the two do not correspond performance wise.

Do not have benchmarks.
You should be able to compare the benchmarks for an I3 2100 (see BENCH) with any I3 laptop benches. I doubt they are close in "real world" performance.

Yeah, this is one main concern. It's been a while since I've looked at laptop VS desktop parts from Intel, and was wondering how die shrinks and the last few years of other improvements may have changed this?

I am wondering if the 2.6ghz Ivy Bridge Core i7 part in a laptop is going to perform slower than if you had a 2.7ghz Ivy Bridge in a desktop, clock for clock. Due to the TDP, throttling, or any other chip changes?

It may have changed but I remember the rule as it costs three times more than a desktop for a laptop to match it.

or, 6x more if you are comparing a PC desktop to an Apple laptop 😉

 

[dsc106]

I have experience with a high dpi screen and that is why I asked the op.

Interesting. So have I And that's why I don't need to ask.

I have much experience with high DPI screens, and I'm with 2is. To me, the difference is quite striking. I think it's important to clarify the difference between seeing something in a store or using it for 5 minutes VS owning a hi DPI product and growing accustomed to it. Once you use one for a longer term, trying to go back to a lower DPI version is when the difference becomes most striking.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Look nice does not mean is nice. Apple branded displays are not the choice for color accuracy as I said. Ppi means nothing when you need perfect color.

 

[dsc106]

Look nice does not mean is nice. Apple branded displays are not the choice for color accuracy as I said. Ppi means nothing when you need perfect color.

Let's get some facts here to back this up, besides "as I said" - no one said PPI has ANYTHING to do with color accuracy, and the only Apple computer display with an unusually hiDPI is the new Retina Macbook Pro (excluding of course iPhone/iPad). Apple branded displays use the absolute best IPS displays on the market and constantly rate as some of the best IPS (read: color accurate displays) available. They have superb color reproduction. Granted, this isn't due to Apple, as they source the same display tech as the other top IPS displays. This is well known.

The only areas where an Apple IPS display falls short in color accuracy is where ALL IPS displays fall short in color accuracy, and where a higher caliber or more application specific display is needed. This has nothing to do with Apple, and everything to do with IPS technology. This is cold, hard fact. So I'm not really sure what you are trying to point out here. If you are trying to say that hiDPI does not equal color accuracy, who are you responding to? No one has made such an assertion. The only assertion here is that brilliant color accuracy with the best IPS display tech in market + HiDPI/high resolution is one freaking awesome display.

Would I choose a 15.4" HiDPI display *OVER* 2 large IPS desktop panels for video editing? Of course not, what gave anyone that idea? I specifically stated I would be docking the laptop when not on the go to work at my current edit station. Would I choose a HiDPI IPS display over a standard DPI IPS display in a portable laptop? Of course I would, but not because it gives better color accuracy. Because it's HiDPI, and the image sharpness and clarity is stunning.

 

[2is]

Look nice does not mean is nice. Apple branded displays are not the choice for color accuracy as I said. Ppi means nothing when you need perfect color.

Tell that to the professional video producers and photographers that swear by them then.

I can also say perfect color means nothing when you need PPI. It doesn't actually mean anything. Besides, last I checked no one did a color gamut test on the screen in question to determine its color accuracy. Apple displays have always ranked at or close to the top in pretty much every metric.

 

[alyarb]

Read anand's musings on how Lion scales the pixels for the new display. By default everything is resized to fit the dimensions 1440x900 with basically double the sharpness. You can extend out to 1920x1200 max, but there is no 1:1 profile, and you will not have any extra horizontal real estate while editing a 1920-width video. So you actually don't get to see 2880x1800 on the desktop until someone jailbreaks that limitation or whatever. Apple isn't giving you the display so you can be more productive, they are doing it so their fonts and buttons look prettier and third-party apps look uglier.

I'm not in love with FCPX. I don't think anyone is. So I would wait for other mobile ivy workstations to come to market with true 2560 IPS displays if color accuracy and sharpness is your thing, plus you will get CUDA acceleration under Windows, which you wouldn't on a Mac. I believe CUDA is for Quadro cards only in the Mac universe if I'm not mistaken.

Apple displays have always ranked at or close to the top in pretty much every metric.

Absolutely false. This is their first laptop with IPS.

 

[dsc106]

Apple isn't giving you the display so you can be more productive, they are doing it so their fonts and buttons look prettier and third-party apps look uglier.

No one said they were, or said it was a replacement to a larger screen. Only that it's a brilliant display. Looking prettier is exactly the point (not to mention sharper images and pixel-for-pixel accuracy, which is important for judging focus in video and photos). Non-scaled 2800x1800 on 15.4" would be impossibly small. You say "look prettier" as if it's a bad thing? I think that's a great thing. Pixel doubled apps on a display of this PPI will not look "ugly" (though of course they won't look as good as 2800x1800 apps), nor is native 2800x1800 resolution is a difficult thing for developers to incorporate. Given Apple's and the developer's track record, they will do so relatively quickly.

Absolutely false. This is their first laptop with IPS.

Can't speak for 2is but I have been referring exclusively to Apple's Cinema Displays that employ IPS technology.

 

[alyarb]

No one said they were

You yourself said it on the previous page.

I do video editing, and fitting a 1080p native pixel-per-pixel image on a 2800x1800 display and still having plenty of room left over for timeline and bin browser is pretty stinking awesome.

First you said you wanted the new display for the real estate. Then I tell you the max scaled width is 1920. Now you say you want the new display because it makes everything look nice.

Just admit that you want this Macbook and go get it. Don't ask us to present technical caveats to you just so that you can dismiss them with your infatuation for the superficial.

 

[dsc106]

You yourself said it on the previous page.

Are you kidding me? I said I was thinking of a LAPTOP instead of a desktop, not a 15.4" DISPLAY instead of a larger display. I already have 5 IPS monitors for my business, which I would plug the laptop in at a docking station, which I clearly stated. And of course I want a better display for when I am MOBILE and can't plug in, why WOULDNT I?

First you said you wanted the new display for the real estate. Then I tell you the max scaled width is 1920. Now you say you want the new display because it makes everything look nice.

No, I did not. I never said I wanted the display for 2880x1800 real estate. I specifically stated multiple times the benefits in sharpness of HiDPI, and specifically stated that you can gain MORE real estate with this display - which you said yourself: 1920 scaling is a WHOLE lot more than 1440x900 on 15.4" display (that's the same real estate as my 24" IPS monitor, which is fantastic) - and as we both stated, lion gives scaling options. That's a pretty big deal. Who in their right mind would want to (let alone be able) to work with non scaled 2880x1800 pixels? I never once alluded that I was interested in the display for 2880x1800 pixels of non-scaled real estate, only stated you could get "MORE" real estate (unless you don't think 1920x1200 is a MASSIVE jump from 1440x900 or even the 1680x1050 upgrade option on previous MBPs).

Just admit that you want this Macbook and go get it. Don't ask us to present technical caveats to you just so that you can dismiss them with your infatuation for the superficial.

LOL where did I try to "hide" that I want the macbook? I specifically stated I was considering buying one and wanted to know the difference between the processors used in mobile VS desktop. I am not SOLD on the Macbook but that's not because I don't think it's incredible machine, I am debating what is best going to serve me right now.

I never asked for any opinion on the Macbook or if I should buy one. I asked for the part numbers and performance difference in the mobile chips used so I could decide for myself. And what technical caveat are we referring to here? That obvious fact that a laptop can't reach desktop performance? Or do you ACTUALLY think the display is a "technical ceaveat"?

It might be an interesting read for you to see what anandtech has to say about it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5998/macbook-pro-retina-display-analysis

 

[2is]

Read anand's musings on how Lion scales the pixels for the new display. By default everything is resized to fit the dimensions 1440x900 with basically double the sharpness. You can extend out to 1920x1200 max, but there is no 1:1 profile, and you will not have any extra horizontal real estate while editing a 1920-width video. So you actually don't get to see 2880x1800 on the desktop until someone jailbreaks that limitation or whatever. Apple isn't giving you the display so you can be more productive, they are doing it so their fonts and buttons look prettier and third-party apps look uglier.

I'm not in love with FCPX. I don't think anyone is. So I would wait for other mobile ivy workstations to come to market with true 2560 IPS displays if color accuracy and sharpness is your thing, plus you will get CUDA acceleration under Windows, which you wouldn't on a Mac. I believe CUDA is for Quadro cards only in the Mac universe if I'm not mistaken.




Absolutely false. This is their first laptop with IPS.

I'm well aware of that, thanks and they've still had among the best displays. Not to mention they also have displays not mated to laptops. Their iMac, cinema display and thunderbolt displays are all IPS.