How many of you would like to see a Core-M option on the MBP?

hear me out before hang me title. late 2012 mbp i5 2.5(3210m)/8/256 still 99% more computer need. primary reason got "pro" gorgeous retina screen , connectivity options. imagine i'm not alone.

posted benchmarks on 5y71 come close mbp. in fact single-core score higher. if said benchmarks believed think it's capable processor today. if comes out skylake or cannonlake more capable , power efficient. we'd have all-day battery life.

i'd see on mbp line. while 13" version of released retina mb nice , have followers, appreciate available ports on mbp, , fan-cooled processor can run on turbo indefinitely.

 

cvx5832 said: ↑

hear me out before hang me title. late 2012 mbp i5 2.5(3210m)/8/256 still 99% more computer need. primary reason got "pro" gorgeous retina screen , connectivity options. imagine i'm not alone.

posted benchmarks on 5y71 come close mbp. in fact single-core score higher. if said benchmarks believed think it's capable processor today. if comes out skylake or cannonlake more capable , power efficient. we'd have all-day battery life.

i'd see on mbp line. while 13" version of released retina mb nice , have followers, appreciate available ports on mbp, , fan-cooled processor can run on turbo indefinitely.

click expand...

it cannot run cores @ turbo indefinitely due tdp limits. might possible on 1 core though not @ 2.9 ghz. 2.4-2.6 ghz on continuous single core turbo. it's not capable system today's standards if you're using professional apps. won't called "pro" anymore if did have core-m.

 

Forums Macs Notebooks MacBook Pro

• iPhone
• Mac OS & System Software
• iPad
• Apple Watch
• Notebooks
• iTunes
• Apple ID
• iCloud
• Desktop Computers
• Apple Music
• Professional Applications
• iPod
• iWork
• Apple TV
• iLife
• Wireless