I think you forgot the ethernet and DVD adapters for the MBA ;-)
Actual price... $1,907, or more than the MBP for less computer
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
13" MBP or 13" MBA?
- Thread starter AuroraProject
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think you forgot the ethernet and DVD adapters for the MBA ;-)
Actual price... $1,907, or more than the MBP for less computer
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I'll be working with photos on this laptop so color accuracy is important. Resolution isn't critical, but color accuracy is.
akhbhaat said:
I'll be working with photos on this laptop so color accuracy is important. Resolution isn't critical, but color accuracy is.
I think you forgot the ethernet and DVD adapters for the MBA ;-)
Actual price... $1,907, or more than the MBP for less computer
1799 + 23 (ethernet adapter) + 12.45= 1835.
More computer = weight.
MBA not supposed to be a beast.
Intel 3000HD vs. NVidia 320m?
also, MBA can handle pretty much anything... 2.13 is more than enough for 90% of our needs.
ethernet: http://www.google.com/products/cata...=X&ei=WIB0TZHZH4GcgQevp5HNDw&ved=0CE8Q8wIwAg#
DVD: http://www.amazon.com/External-CD-R...H908/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1299480810&sr=8-3
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Intel 3000HD, while not ideal is fine for the kind of games you'd expect to be playing on a 13" laptop (HINT: not Crysis!)
...it's not like the 320m is a monster anyway.
I also think you are being misleading by simply quoting the speed in GHz. The new i5s are literally 100% faster than the C2D; you'd surely notice that in iPhoto, CS5... etc.
For your last point, I know that there is cheap, good hardware available; however, would you really want to attach something like that to your stylish MBA?
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Actually, you can run sc2 and COD MW2 in the MBA as well as in the new MBP...
No, I know. Ive been a SB fan since it was first rumored. the only reason why I didnt buy the 2010 MBP/MBA was only for Sandy Bridge. I knew it was a huge leap. But really, when we are talking about a normal user, why not the MBA over the MBP?
Dont get me wrong, I will buy the MBP 13 by the end of summer if there are no upgrades in the MBA line with Sandy bridge processors. But sometimes people underestimate the MBA. 256SSD just right out kills anything thrown at it, and a 2.13 GHz Core2duo can handle any task.
Unless you are a heavy photoshop user and video maker (which you should be using a 15 instead of a 13), MBA is a great choice for college students, high schoolers, old people, and just normal business people.
Yeah for sure, if I hadn't bought an MBP now, I would def go for an SB MBA... but C2D... in 2011?
I'm in the same boat ...
I prefer the MBA because of
- its weight
- better screen resolution
- less glossy screen than the MBP
BUT
- no ethernet port (and the USB adapter is not gigabit)
- no superdrive
My questions are :
- if I take the MBA with the USB external superdrive is this OK to ripp CDs and DVDs (USB connection not too slow, CPU not to weak for encoding ?)
- if I take the MBP I fear the 1200x800 resolution : is this enough with software like outlook and photoshop where there is a lot of information ?
Thanks for your help and time
I prefer the MBA because of
- its weight
- better screen resolution
- less glossy screen than the MBP
BUT
- no ethernet port (and the USB adapter is not gigabit)
- no superdrive
My questions are :
- if I take the MBA with the USB external superdrive is this OK to ripp CDs and DVDs (USB connection not too slow, CPU not to weak for encoding ?)
- if I take the MBP I fear the 1200x800 resolution : is this enough with software like outlook and photoshop where there is a lot of information ?
Thanks for your help and time
the lower resolution of the mbp bothers me it seems apple is increasing screen res in its other products.
the lower screen res makes everything look big and requires scrolling.
andricop 1280x800 res is normal and accustomed res. It is supported by all apps and optimized for them. Of course a hi-res screen looks better but imho this is not so critical, 1280x800 screens are still fine and you'll not feel discomfortable when using Photoshop
I purchased my 13" MBP yesterday! Everyone has told me that it will be fine running Photoshop, so we shall see. I just ordered a 20" monitor to hook the MBP up to while at home, and this thing is small enough to tote around when I need to (although I loved the size of the iPad!!!). I've been playing with it this morning, setting up email, etc, etc, and it's super snappy. I like it so far, although I am trying to figure stuff out LOL. I did play with the MBA at the store and it's super light, super skinny, and super cute, but I KNOW I need more power than it has for Photoshop (CS5).
Posters to the MBA Forum have reported that their 4GB MBAs handle Photoshop (CS5) just fine. See Posts ##32 and 33 to the linked thread.
To answer your question OP the A is super fast enough to do everything you want to do. The only thing a P can do that an A can't do is something you don't seem to need to do (run super heavy games, run super heavy film editing).
Everything else is blisteringly fast due to SSD performance. Even an 11 inch might work. They are nothing like the old Airs. Everything is powerful and zippy with no weaknesses for normal and medium-high tasks.
Everything else is blisteringly fast due to SSD performance. Even an 11 inch might work. They are nothing like the old Airs. Everything is powerful and zippy with no weaknesses for normal and medium-high tasks.
Ok so just to throw a wrench into the process I'm now thinking about going with the base 15" instead. I'm currently on a 17" MBP which gets connected to a 23" ACD frequently. I don't think I can deal with 1280x800!
I do think so as I bought one to be used as my primary computer.
What I haven't read in any thread is this:
The mbp 13" went from 10 hours on a battery charge back to 7 hours when sandy bridge was introduced. If the MBA gets the same sandy bridge, and the battery also gets a 30% kick there isn't a whole day of juice left, it will get back to just under 5 hours and in real use it will get back to around 4 hours.
So while the sandy bridge might take the next release of the MacBook air into the power user realm, it might also take it right out of reach of the road warrior.
Another reason I choose the MBA over the mbp was that my 2009 mbp has the same processor, same front bus speed, same video card and an SSD that I installed myself. It is just almost twice as heavy as my old mbp. So I'm buying the same mac but lighter and thinner.
How much more power do I need?! I work a lot with office, quit some time in parallels windows xp for a tiny little program, and thats the "heavy use" I have. The rest is emailing, safari, iTunes and on rare occasions some video watching.
So I bough the maxed out 13" MBA for just under 1800. For the same price I would have an identical mbp except the sandy bridge and twice the weight and a video processor that is a step back or at least not a step forward.
So in two weeks I hope to get my MBA and shed another two pounds of my daily burden.
I have both a Macbook Air 2.13GHZ (new version) and a new 13" 2.7GHZ i7.
I'm posting here (again ) because i've been using them both a bit now. I've decided that if you need power at all, get the new MBP. These new i7's are at least twice as powerful . Now when I say twice as powerful I mean it, unlike comments you hear all the time about products. As a matter of fact it's probably more like 3 times more powerful. Actually 3 times! . In other words, a demanding app that has a built in cpu meter will register perhaps 15% on the Air while only registering 5% on the MBP.
And these are both 13" machines that cost about the same. The MBP weighs more, and has a lower res screen (which is a drag ,even though it's a good screen), but the difference in power is extreme. I would MUCH rather travel with the Air but it's just not going to do it for me after using the new MBP.
Now what's going to happen obviously, is that the Airs will be refreshed in a couple months to the i3's or 5's and then they will have a leg to stand on. Right now they a just limping along.
Just a heads up.
I'm posting here (again
) because i've been using them both a bit now. I've decided that if you need power at all, get the new MBP. These new i7's are at least twice as powerful . Now when I say twice as powerful I mean it, unlike comments you hear all the time about products. As a matter of fact it's probably more like 3 times more powerful. Actually 3 times! . In other words, a demanding app that has a built in cpu meter will register perhaps 15% on the Air while only registering 5% on the MBP. And these are both 13" machines that cost about the same. The MBP weighs more, and has a lower res screen (which is a drag ,even though it's a good screen), but the difference in power is extreme. I would MUCH rather travel with the Air but it's just not going to do it for me after using the new MBP.
Now what's going to happen obviously, is that the Airs will be refreshed in a couple months to the i3's or 5's and then they will have a leg to stand on. Right now they a just limping along.
Just a heads up.
What are the apps you run, which lead you to claim that the 2.13Ghz C2D MBA is inadequate for the task? I have had the same model MBA as you have for more than 5 months and it has no trouble running a couple of Windows 7 apps under VMware Fusion simultaneously with 5 or 6 OS X apps. I am not a gamer and suspect that the MBA might be a little light for many of them but I haven't seen any limitations in my use.I have both a Macbook Air 2.13GHZ (new version) and a new 13" 2.7GHZ i7.
I'm posting here (again
And these are both 13" machines that cost about the same. The MBP weighs more, and has a lower res screen (which is a drag ,even though it's a good screen), but the difference in power is extreme. I would MUCH rather travel with the Air but it's just not going to do it for me after using the new MBP.
Now what's going to happen obviously, is that the Airs will be refreshed in a couple months to the i3's or 5's and then they will have a leg to stand on. Right now they a just limping along.
Just a heads up.
My grandson has a 13 inch MBP and loves it, so I understand its appeal. It weighs more than 50 percent more than the MBA, though, has poorer graphics, and a mechanical hard drive that is significantly slower than the MBA's flash storage. Consequently, it seems to me that for most users, the MBA is the better choice.
I assume your GS has the 2011 MBP. If that's the case, the 2011 MBP does not have "poorer graphics". I'm not sure where this comes from. The Intel outperforms the 320M in almost every category except Windows gaming. The other assumption is everybody who's buying these MBP's are buying platter drives, not the case. I'm not hating on the MBA because I owned one and liked it. Here's a link that directly compares the 2 graphics cards on MBP's.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4084/intels-sandy-bridge-upheaval-in-the-mobile-landscape/5
Actually, the 13 inch 2011 MBP's graphics are indeed worse than those of the MBA's. First the MBP's resolution is only 1280 X 800 compared to the MBA's 1440 X 900. Second, the Anandtech comparison is highly controversial and has been widely discredited by knowledgeable Mac-Rumors posters, who seem credible, to me at least. There is a thread about all of that here somewhere but I don't have time to look for it now.
I assume by "platter drive" you meant a mechanical hard drive. An upgrade from the MBP's base mechanical hard drive to a 256GB SSD drive from Apple adds $650 to the MBP's price. Even bought from a third party vendor such a drive costs at least $400 and must be installed by the owner. It seems to me this leads to the conclusion that anyone who wants flash storage should chose the MBA. The MBA is cheaper than an MBP equipped with a 256GB SSD, much lighter, and has better graphics.
I know you know the difference between resolution and graphics. It's a well known fact the MBP has less resolution than the MBA but you're really reaching if you "think" the 320m is better than the 3000 HD. I've offered proof and statistics from a credible source and you downplay it with conjecture. Lighter yes, better graphics? The experts tend to disagree.
I am not going to change your mind and your are not going to change mine, so let me ask a practical question about the claimed graphics superiority of the 13 inch MBP. What applications, other than gaming have convinced you that the 13 inch MBP's graphics are clearly superior to those of the MBA? There may be some but I haven't seen them. I spent the better part of an hour at the Apple Store recently trying to assess the quality of the graphics of the new 13 inch MBP. Obviously, about all I could do was Web based but for that everyday use, the MBP's reduced resolution was a drawback and I didn't see any advantages.
Graphics aside, there are many factors to consider in choosing between a 13 inch MBP and an MBA and I understand perfectly why a buyer on a budget who was willing to live with the MBP's slow mechanical drive would opt to save money by buying it instead of an MBA. For those willing to spend the extra money for an MBA with 256GB of flash memory, though, it seems like the clear choice. Anyway, it seems to me that either the 13 inch MBP or the MBA would be a poor choice for anybody who predominately runs apps calling for extraordinary processing and graphics power. For the rest of us, though, either would be a great choice. Which one choses should be governed by one's actual needs and not by raw specifications.
Sandy Bridge for the MacBook Air could just as well be June 2012 as June 2011 ... there's one good reason.
We'll see, but be aware that by June 2012 the current MBA will be severly lagging behind in specs to other competitors. The old MBA didn't get a yearly refresh because there was nothing as thin and as powerful at the time, not so now.