Apple quietly adds new faster Core i7 to MacBook Pro lineup

By on Oct 21, 2010 at 2:16 AM
General October 21, 2010

The star of Wednesday’s Apple event was undoubtedly the shiny new MacBook Air models unveiled by CEO Steve Jobs as the show’s final announcement. The fact that Apple added a new processor option to its high-end MacBook Pro line wasn’t even mentioned during the event. Regardless, professionals in need of the latest and greatest kit will be happy to learn that Apple has added a new faster processor option for 15 and 17-inch MacBook Pro models. The new CPU bumps the top-end Intel Core i7 processor option up to 2.8GHz from the previous 2.66GHz processor, which is still available on both models. The upgrade will add $200 to the cost of the $2,199 15-inch model, or $400 to the cost of the $2,299 17-inch model. If you have a need for speed and the means to partake, hit the read links to order up your MacBook Pro of choice.

Read (15-inch) Read (17-inch)

Tags:
, , , , , , ,
28 Comments

Related Articles

  • cartoon

    …still overpriced

    • Mgl323

      I agree. But some people don’t mind paying that much for a Laptop.

    • NuShrike

      Shocking a Sony Z gen13 could be cheaper vs MBP.

  • jon

    I remember when I paid just under $4,000 for a Powerbook in 2004… what Apple offered then was competitive at the time (minus memory- that was seriously a joke). Now though… A $1,0000 mark up for an operating system?

    Apple has gotten waaay too comfortable. The iPhone success has skewed Apple’s perception into believing that people care as much about their computers as they do their phones.

    • Mgl323

      $10,000 mark up for an operating system? who would buy that?

      • Fanboy

        Blind fanboys will buy

  • David

    I type macbook into BGR search and I get 7 non-iphone mac products AND, as with this article, a link directly to their store purchase page. Not their product description page-there store purchase page. I type in HP … nothing. Dell … nothing. Acer … one … only because it’s being sold by AT&T. Does it take me to an online AT&T purchase page for the mentioned models? Not really.

    So aside from the continuing and exclusive marketing of Apple computers on the BGR site, I’d have to say this article … does … what? Oh yeah … sells Apple products. How much does BGR get in products … advertising dollars and/or “writer” swag?

    • sirpaul

      Exactly, the only time we hear about Toshiba or HP is when they have some sort of new battery. And they somehow manage to mention Apple in those posts too. There are so many awesome PC that can do cool stuff at a much lower price point than that of Apple’s. I don’t mind you cover Apple well, but throw in some info about PCs as well. 92% of users use PCs….you know that…right? Just those 8% of mac users never seem to be able to shut up about their macs, making the 8% sound more like 60%. Oh, fanboys….

      • Mr. Bill

        Plus 10,000!

        Sirpaul is the Intranet winner of the day at BGR.!!

      • Cold_dead_fingers

        Yeah, I remember this one time, I was on an Apple related post and all of these windows fanboys just started talking about PCs and why Apple fans are annoying……….

  • Obj_me

    Agreed pricing is a bit steep but I think people are looking at it a bit wrong here. Firstly apple is like the “Gucci” or “Pandora Bracelet” of the computer world. You’re paying for a brand and for a design. However that’s not to say Apple doesn’t offer pretty good value, not only is the resale on their machines probably the highest in the industry, they also offer some great bundled software. They do make a solid(physically) machine, the specs are decent and it’s a great looking machine. I would say most people buy Macs for their OS and accompanying software. I personally love OS X but at this point macs are a bit to rich for my blood. So I, like many other geeks, just use a hackintosh

    • Al

      While I love Apple products, I don’t term myself a fanboy. This summer I needed to buy a new laptop to render HD video on the go. I wanted a laptop that was both powerful and light. I waited patiently for the revised MBP lineup, and was disappointed that the 13″ didn’t have a Core i3 or i5 (I really wanted i5 as the best balance between performance and battery life). I ended up buying an HP DM4. DM4 compares very well with 13″ MBP, but I got a much faster processor, but a crappier touchpad and no backlit keyboard.

      I don’t mind paying a premium for Apple products, but paying a premium for “older” technology seems absurd to me.

      Another case in point is the 11″ MBA, I really would love one, but without an SD card reader, it does me no go.

  • Obj_me

    Agreed pricing is a bit steep but I think people are looking at it a bit wrong here. Firstly apple is like the “Gucci” or “Pandora Bracelet” of the computer world. You’re paying for a brand and for a design. However that’s not to say Apple doesn’t offer pretty good value, not only is the resale on their machines probably the highest in the industry, they also offer some great bundled software. They do make a solid(physically) machine, the specs are decent and it’s a great looking machine. I would say most people buy Macs for their OS and accompanying software. I personally love OS X but at this point macs are a bit to rich for my blood. So I, like many other geeks, just use a hackintosh. Sure the updates aren’t timely and run the potential of screwing they system up at every kext install. That’s the tradeoff though for saving money though.

    • NuShrike

      13.1″ Sony Z, gen 13 w:
      256MB SSD, 4GB ram, matte-screen, 2.8GHz i7 640, 1600×900, 1GB Nvidia-GT330M, DVD/rw, 3lbs! = $2500 pretax/shipping

      15″ MBP w:
      256MB SSD, 4GB ram, matte-screen, 2.8GHz i7 640?,
      1680×1050 512MB Nvidia-GT330M, DVD/rw, 5.6lbs = $3200 pretax/shipping

      Wheres the $700 diff in value for the Mac go — the unibody, battery?

      You can get 1920×1080 on the Sony for $100 more!

  • Obj_me

    Ergh only needed that first though…

  • r j s

    So why didn’t they upgrade to i7 Quad Core uP? Battery life issues? It seems that Quad uP’s should provide greater performance, and (maybe) catch up to laptop PC world…

    • Philbert

      If you compare the performance of the Quad i7 to the Dual i7, it isn’t that much better in most cases, and the Quad i& is hotter and sucks more battery.

      • tyler peters

        Not to bright I see… Of course there won’t be much performance advantage on benchmarks. Thats one app running on maybe 2 or 3 threads which the dual core will match the quad. What happens in the real world though is: streaming online music, burning dvd, checking email with multiple other tabs running, while your phone is syncing in the background running Itunes… wanna bet the dual core will still hang with the quad???

    • http://86words.com Jaidex

      The primary reason that Apple took as long as they have to upgrade the top end of the MBP to 2.8 GHz has been that they’ve been struggling with heating issues. They, as a company (and corporate direction) refuse to sacrifice Aesthetic for more power – they hold off on the power upgrade until they can make it work.
      With this in mind, and the fairly small gain that the extra cores give you for most people in most circumstances, they opted for the NEARLY fastest option with the SIGNIFICANTLY LESS heat generation.

  • http://www.grahambanks.com grahambanks

    2299 for the 17 inch i7 macbook is an incredible bargain. Yes you can get a toshiba or acer for half, but they will die in 18 months. A Dell would be even less but will die in 12 months. A mac will run as new for years. You will find many people out there running G4 Powerbooks that are 6+ years old now, and having no problems. It’s not the OS that doubles the price, it’s the build quality.

    • Mitch

      I have to agree with this guy somewhat. I have friends with ANCIENT Macs that still run like new that are their everyday computers. They don’t want a new one because their 6+ YO Mac runs just fine.

      I’ve also had Dells that ran for almost 4 years without a hardware failure.

    • TomCruise

      you are seriously kidding, right?

      i have a 11 year old Gateway running super fine for whatever it was configured as. Installing Ubuntu has added spice to the flavor.

      then I have a 6 years old Acer (again running Ubuntu for past 6 months) which runs great and was bought for mere $400.

      so no, the acer doesn’t die in 18 months unless the owner is really stupid or doesn’t know how to take care of their machine unless they’ve spent $2500+ on it.

      get your head out of the sand.

  • iFan

    Still no updates for the 13inch….stuck with core2

  • Tdot34

    Can some please explain why the Core i7 costs $200 to upgrade in the 15″ version but $400 in the 17″ version.

    • tyler peters

      Did you forget what company you were dealing with? The very same company that says the ipad ISN’T just a big ipod, and that your just holding your phone wrong…

  • http://www.anthonymaw.com Anthony Maw

    Don’t get sucked in by the marketing campaign: The processor speed is NOT the limiting factor – it’s always network, disk and RAM performance that’s holding up the CPU. The CPU sits idle for 98% of the time the computer is turned on. Also application coding efficiency makes a big difference. Simply bumping up the Gigahertz and core count doesn’t mean diddly squat.

  • kate

    Umm I purchased the 17″ macbook pro on the 18th of Oct 2010, I upgraded the Processor to the i7 2.66GHz and upgraded the ram to 8GB, and upgraded the HDD to 500GB 7200RPM… then I just found out that a faster processor is out… sux i know. But given my upgrades, would the 2.80GHZ have made a noticeable difference? (i’ll be using it to edit videos using final cut pro and after effects).

    • http://86words.com Jaidex

      Kate,

      Actually, it COULD make a difference – don’t let the .14 GHz mislead you – there are more important factors in this decision. The 2.66 and 2.8 GHz specs are the speed the CPUs runs when they aren’t being heavily taxed. The i7 processor jumps into a turbo mode when the processor is under heavy load with specs as follows:
      2.66 -> 2.94
      2.8 -> 3.46
      That gives a 1/2 GHz difference when the CPU needs it.

blog comments powered by Disqus