13-low og 13-high?

[mjohansen]

Hi

As the topic says. Which should i spend my money on:

13-inch: 2.3 GHz + 128gb SSD

or 13-inch: 2.7 GHz ?

I will be using the computer for surfing, word/excel and occasionally playing SC2 and FM 2011. And D3 when the time comes.

I do realise the 13-inch does not have a discrete gpu, but for intense gaming I have a desktop computer. So I can live with low details when playing on my macbook.

Thanks in advance.

 

[ThaDoggg]

Stick with the low end. The bump in price for the high end is just not worth it.

 

[pricej636]

Honestly I would pick up a refurb 15", get the better graphics and save some money. $1269 before tax and shipping.

I would probably take the low end 13" if I had to pick one. I think that i7 is going to eat your battery.

 

[Nethus]

Exact same here. $300 seems a lot for just a processor boost that i'm not sure i'll need.

The i7 would future proof the purchase a bit more, but seeing as the 13" 2011 is pretty rubbish, it may be better getting the low-end and getting a new one next year? Also strongly considering to upgrade to a 128GB Solid State.

 

[aiuL]

So the difference between the i5 and i7 isn't worth the $300?

I will use the Mac for the same tasks as the first post, and will upgrade for a 128GB SSD, but am not sure if there is a point in upgrading the processor too?

 

[eaf7s]

Honestly I would pick up a refurb 15", get the better graphics and save some money. $1269 before tax and shipping.

I would probably take the low end 13" if I had to pick one. I think that i7 is going to eat your battery.

Buuuuurt resale value/length of life...

 

[jonaas]

I can't decide which one to order.
You think the i7 performs, visually, better in gaming?
Or isn't there any difference?
Maybe it's better to order the low-end and some extra ram for better performance?

 

[fibrizo]

I can't decide which one to order.
You think the i7 performs, visually, better in gaming?
Or isn't there any difference?
Maybe it's better to order the low-end and some extra ram for better performance?

The intel graphics are the bottleneck here. Lowest res stuff will run fine as it's CPU bound at that point, but when you bump it to medium, it scores lower than the old 320m+core2 combo.

Most likely due to GPU limitations, in gaming, you might get 1 fps or 2.

Any please, there is no such thing as future proofing -_-

Benchmark info from a Quad core sandybride 2820 vs core 2 +320m (old 13 mbp)

StarCraft 2 1366x768 Low detail (CPU bound, also remember this is the quad core)

I7-2820QM+Intel HD 3000 = 59.7fps
P8600+320M = 44.1fps

StarCraft 2 1366x768 Medium detail (GPU bound, again also against a quad core)

I7-2820QM+Intel HD 3000 = 20.7fps
P8600+320M = 27.6fps

So remember the actual dual core numbers will be lower than this most likely

Basically if you like your stuff with lowest settings, the new 13 mbp will suit you fine. But if you like added detail, possibly anti-aliasing... well... it's not as good.

 

[jonaas]

The intel graphics are the bottleneck here. Lowest res stuff will run fine as it's CPU bound at that point, but when you bump it to medium, it scores lower than the old 320m+core2 combo.

Most likely due to GPU limitations, in gaming, you might get 1 fps or 2.

Any please, there is no such thing as future proofing -_-

Benchmark info from a Quad core sandybride 2820 vs core 2 +320m (old 13 mbp)

StarCraft 2 1366x768 Low detail (CPU bound, also remember this is the quad core)

I7-2820QM+Intel HD 3000 = 59.7fps
P8600+320M = 44.1fps

StarCraft 2 1366x768 Medium detail (GPU bound, again also against a quad core)

I7-2820QM+Intel HD 3000 = 20.7fps
P8600+320M = 27.6fps

So remember the actual dual core numbers will be lower than this most likely

Basically if you like your stuff with lowest settings, the new 13 mbp will suit you fine. But if you like added detail, possibly anti-aliasing... well... it's not as good.

Ok, thanks for your answer!
So am i getting it right if i think that it doesn't matter if i buy low-end 13 or high-end? game wise..