17" 2.6Ghz Early08 (pre-unibody) vs 13" 2.53Ghz unibody

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Yurtal, Mar 17, 2010.

  1. Yurtal macrumors member

    May 8, 2009
    I was just hoping someone could tell me how much of a speed difference there is between these two computers, either way.

    CPU power
    RAM speed
    and GPU power

    I currently own the 13" MBP but as my only computer I find myself needing a larger screen. I am thinking of selling it and using the money to buy a pre-unibody model as the value should be somewhat similar. Am I right?

    Thanks for the help.
  2. bobbytomorow macrumors 6502


    Nov 10, 2007
    Left Coast
    The 17" has a better GPU (8600m 512MB), faster CPU, higher resolution and quality display. I would take the 17" MBP over a 13" Macbook, even if its a little older.
  3. Yurtal thread starter macrumors member

    May 8, 2009
  4. Sace macrumors member

    Mar 30, 2008
    I would save the money, and get a Unibody model. The Nvidia GF8600 failures alone keeps me from buying any of the classic mbp's
  5. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Sep 4, 2006
    I'd steer clear away from the 17" 2.66GHz model as it has the problematic nvidia 8600m gt card that could die on you at any moment.
  6. kny3twalker macrumors 65816


    Oct 25, 2009
    Also the older 2.6 is probably the same speed or slower than the 2.53. The nvidia card is a reason enough though to look elsewhere. Consider a nice ips display like the Dell ultrasharp, hp lp series, or the apple cinema display if you want glare at home too.
  7. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Sep 4, 2006
    I'd pick the cinema display as it has an LED backlighting. Its such a joy to use it as it gets to 100% brightness everytime you turn it on.

    You dont even have to worry about the glare on the LED ACD display, its so damn bright that it'll drown out any reflections. I have mine right behind 2 big windows and 99% of the time dont even notice that its glossy. I always think that the 24" LED ACD is a matte display (except when the whole screen is pitch black the afternoon then you can see yourself). But even if that bothers you, you can move the 24" to a place where there wont be any glare whatsoever.

    For example everytime I see the reflections on my 13" glossy display, I always think that why couldnt the 13" be like the 24" and then I remember oh yea their both glossy..??

    The 24" LED ACD is the best display I've ever owned and I've been through all the previous 20", 23" 30" cinema displays, 30" dell IPS display, 2407 dell IPS (it was a lottery on this one but I did manage to get an IPS display by checking the serial number) and thus far the 24" leaves all of them in the dust.

    I swear everytime I turn on the 24" LED ACD, my eyes goes @_@. Out of all my toys, 2.26GHz Mac Pro (which I sold), 17" uMBP (I sold as well LOL) and my 13" uMBP, the 24" LED ACD is by far my favorite.

    I've been thinking about a 27" iMac as it also has an H-IPS panel with LED backlighting BUT I'm not sure because of all these yellow tint issues, grey band at the bottom issues as well.

    Tomorrow is the last day that I can return my 13", and I'm on the edge of exchanging it for a 15" matte one. I absolutely hate glossy but for some reason the 24" LED ACD doesnt seem like a glossy display. I'm pretty sure it has to do with it being super bright + not moving it around and staying in one place.
  8. kny3twalker macrumors 65816


    Oct 25, 2009
  9. JosX macrumors regular

    Dec 27, 2009
    Northumberland, UK
    It really depends how you use it, if you use graphic intensive programs, get the MBP for the 512MB GPU, allot of people complain of failiures of the 8600GT but personally I have owned the 15" Santa Rosa with the 8600GT 256MB card for years, most of them with it switched on 24/7, lots of rendering, photoshop work & HD movie watching, & never had an issue, I only switched to the uMBP for the more powerful processor, faster 512MB GPU & unibody design.

    The 13" is definitely a nice computer, I owned the 2.4GHz Aluminium MacBook for a few months, & while it was fast, the graphics chip with shared memory wasn't anywhere near fast enough for my needs, however if you don't do anything graphic intensive & don't care about screen size, it's a great computer.

    Also, there is a massive difference between 13" & 17", have you considered the 15"? I thought about the 17" when switching from 13" as it was to small, but after seeing them in person decided they would be to big to be portable, the 15" is perfect for me.
  10. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Sep 4, 2006
    For me it was backwards. I just sold my 17" uMBP (latest model) and downgraded to a 13" uMBP that you see on my sig.

    The 17" uMBP's weight wasnt too bad but sometimes it got a little tiring when you walk 15-20 minutes to your car. But the biggest issue was the length of the 17", I just hate pulling it out just to surf the web.

    I wanted something smaller to carry around campus since I'm there for 7+ hours a day but I found the 13" way too small as well.

    I've owned the 15" uMBP (first gen) and I remembered it was PERFECT for me except at that time I had the SATA-II issue where if I installed a 3rd party HDD OSX would freeze with the color wheel popping up all the time.

    I installed firmware 1.7 but didnt fix the issue, clearly it was a hardware issue, so I ended up returning it.

    Anyway long story short, tomorrow is my last day of the 14 day return policy so I'm desperately thinking about what to do.

    I could exchange the 13" for the 15" uMBP (matte) as the Apple stores carry it BUT I feel as if I'm paying too much since the i7 is just around the corner.

    NOW, my other plan is going towards a 27" iMac as it has an i7 core and just buy a cheap netbook.

    Im sure as the clock winds down I'll have to make a decision sometime tomorrow. If only the mbps were updated this week, it would have been perfect!

Share This Page