17" MBP Choice: 2.3GHz Quad-Core Early 2011 vs. 2.5GHz Quad-Core Late 2011?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by logicstudiouser, Aug 11, 2014.

  1. logicstudiouser macrumors 6502

    logicstudiouser

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    #1
    Found 2 options for a 17" MacBook Pro. Both very good condition, under 200 battery cycles. Box, everything included. The Early 2011 2.3GHz has 8GB ram and 512GB SSD. The Late 2011 2.5GHz has 4GB ram, 750GB 7200rpm drive. $400 difference.
    The early 2011 is $1400
    The late 2011 is $1800

    I am going to likely eventually change the ram and hard drive regardless of which I end up with. It seems besides the hard drive and ram which can be replaced, the only difference is, 2.3GHz vs 2.5GHz. What does the .2GHz translate to? An extra 5 seconds to boot? Faster application opening?

    What do you recommend?
     
  2. TechZeke macrumors 68020

    TechZeke

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Location:
    Rialto, CA
    #2
    Booting and app launch time is dependant on the storage, the SSD in the 2.3 will smoke the 2.5. I do believe the Late 2011s come with a faster GPU(6770M vs 6750Ms in the Early 2011s, IIRC) Overall, the Early 2011 is definitely the better deal.
     
  3. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #3
    I'd buy neither, because both the early/late-2011 15"/17" models have a manufacturing flaw with the GPU that causes Radeongate.
     
  4. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #4
    That 2.5GHz is horrible value, it should be at least 600$ less. The 2.3GHz is much better, because of the SSD.

    Still, both are bad value given that you can get a 2013 refurb MBP will 512GB SSD and dGPU, with full warranty, for $1,899
     
  5. logicstudiouser thread starter macrumors 6502

    logicstudiouser

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    #5
    Thanks for raising this to my attention. Can you please explain further. What is the problem?
    The reason I am going with 2011 MBP model is because I want more screen space and Apple axed the 17" in 2012. I am going from a 15" macbook pro. It is my primary computer. I don't mind the extra weight. To me, my MBP is my portable desktop.
    Should I be looking at a 2010 model instead? That would I guess be a weaker model.
     
  6. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #6
    What do you mean by 'screen space'? Physical size or amount of content?
     
  7. logicstudiouser thread starter macrumors 6502

    logicstudiouser

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    #7
    Physical size. I am moving from 15" to 17", but I am concerned now that I am hearing the 2011 models are problematic. :(
     
  8. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #8
    Google up the GPU failures in the 2011 MBPs and you'll know :)

    That said, if you want to use it without any problems, I suggest you purchase the 2011 model with SSD and send it somewhere to reball the chip with leaded solder. Also have them reapply the thermal paste on the CPU and GPU.

    The 2.3GHz and 2.5GHz perform almost identically, since they have the same cache size.
     
  9. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #9
    Think about it — do you really want to pay a price of a new laptop for an older, slower, outdated one without warranty simply because it has a bigger screen? If screen is that much of a factor, I would rather recommend you moving to a different vendor... Unless of course you have too much money to burn.
     
  10. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #10
    I'd get whichever one still had warranty remaining, though the Late 2011 should be more like $1100-1200. $1800 is absurd.
     
  11. logicstudiouser thread starter macrumors 6502

    logicstudiouser

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    #11
    Definitely getting one with AppleCare, that is definitely a must. I will inquire about both. I don't want to get burned after buying used.
    My main issues with the 2013 and later macbook pros are the removal of important configurations. the optical drive, ethernet and firewire, specifically, I still rely on almost daily. As well, removal of the matte display, which has really been a huge set back. I don't care much for retina display, I care more about having a matte display.
     
  12. TechZeke macrumors 68020

    TechZeke

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Location:
    Rialto, CA
    #12
    Apple really needs to make a UHD 17" rMBP and not make it start $3000.

    The original 17" would have sold more if they just offered lower starting specs at a lower price than $2500.

    Also, I suspect that allot of people still want a 17" MacBook but Apple doesn't make them anymore, driving up price.
     
  13. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #13
    +1. The matte display is the only reason why I still use my 15" cMBP as my outdoor workhorse.

    I originally bought it two days after it came out in 2011, BTO-ed it to 2.3GHz, 8GB of RAM and a 7200rpm HDD, plus the 1GB 6750M GPU.

    Sometime in late-2012, I pushed the RAM to 16GB and put in a 512GB Samsung 840 Pro. With that SSD, boot times were just 11 seconds and apps launched instantly.

    In March 2014, Radeongate hit the MBP, but the problem was fixed after I sent it for a reball (with leaded solder) and had the thermal paste reapplied on the CPU and GPU. Now it runs far cooler too.
     
  14. errorunknown macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    #14
    You would be crazy to pay that much for a 3 year old laptop. You can get a new 15" macbook pro that would blow those old computers away. Processor, graphics, battery, I just don't see it :eek:

    You mentioned you wanted more screen space. The retina display can show a lot more than the 17" can.
     
  15. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #15
    I tried scaling my 15" rMBP at 1920x1200, and it just can't match the native 1920x1200 of the cMBP, because the text size looks too bloody small when scaled at 1920x1200 on a 15" rMBP.
     
  16. GoldfishRT macrumors 6502

    GoldfishRT

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #16
    The Early is definitely the better deal. Keep in mind that GPU failure is a possibility on both (mine just got back from being repaired a month ago).

    If possible, I'd just save a little extra cash to get a refurb rMBP for $1800 if I were you. I guess if 17" is really that important to you, then that's not an option. It's just a smarter deal in my opinion.
     
  17. Larry-K macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    #17
    I'd buy one in a minute.
     

Share This Page