Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2011 13" MacBook Pro is AWESOME

D

danistyping

macrumors regular
Original poster
Dec 8, 2009
182
171
Boston, MA
Yes - I am upgrading from a 2010 13" 2.4ghz MBP to the 2011 Core i5 model. Here's why:

Processor - Ridiculously faster than that ancient core 2 duo...the sandy bridge i5 will run all of the software I will need for years to come. I can't say the same about the core 2 duo 2.4. (provided a link to the benchmarks below - the new 13" i5 is almost as fast as last generations 17" i7!)

Graphics - If you are getting a 13" MBP or an Air, you don't need great graphics. Also of importance is the fact that with Sandy Bridge, the intel HD 3000 gets faster depending on the processors speed. This puts it right up there with the nVidia 320m. If you want great graphics, get a different machine.

Screen Res - Yea I'm disappointed they didn't up it, but it's the same I've got now anyway.

RAM gets a slight bump to 1333mhz.

HD facetime camera (I do a ton of skyping so this will be great)


Realistically, if I buy applecare for my 2010 it's the same difference in cost as if I sell the 2010 on ebay and buy the 2011.

So all you people trashing the new MBP...can you please explain to me why this is a disappointing upgrade? The only part of your argument I agree with is the screen res.

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/25/new-macbook-pro-benchmarks-show-massive-improvement/
 
Beautiful! I'm gonna get one soon too.
- People say it's a "****" update, but according to apple and the benchmark tests, it's 13" model thats most impressive. Can't wait to get it.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

I agree with the OP on all points.
 
I think I'm going to keep my 2010 13" because it's powerful enough for me and the battery life is a bit better than this year's model.
 
Most people don't benefit from the faster CPU. Sandy Bridge won't speed up Safari or Mail, in fact, there aren't many tasks where you benefit from a faster CPU (those being stuff to do with video, audio and photos mainly).

Screen res is quite ridiculous IMO as base 13" MBA, which is cheaper than the high-end 13" MBP, has a higher res screen. I don't get it why Apple did not include 1440x900, at least as a BTO.

Some people might have expected some kind of an SSD as a standard but as you can see, there is no SSD, just a BTO option like before.
 
I'd like to see some real life tests before I believe this really is a solid upgrade to go for. (I won't be getting one, I have no need for it currently) A side-by-side comparison of them running Portal or something similar would be good.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

No it's not. 7 hours is a realistic figure on the 2010.
 
Screen res is a big deal imo... it's just very upsetting that last year's air has got a better screen.. it's not just the resolution neither but also the glossy glass display on the MBP's that i really hate! My 2007 black macbook doesn't use the glass panel, just like the MBAs, and it has much much less reflection, so for me, upgrading from a 2007 to a 2011 will actually be a downgrade screen-wise which i find is unacceptable. :(

The other point you omitted that is pissing people off is the 5400 hd that is stone age technology and totally bottlenecks the computer, making a slow C2D MBA more snappy in everyday simple tasks than the super duper fast SB i5/i7 in the new MBPs..
 
If you want great graphics, get a different machine.

I hate all those comments like : vote with your wallet, if you dont want it , dont buy it and all that retarded stuff.
May i remind you something ?! WE are customers , WE invest money hardly earned on those things, WE have the right to complain and not be satisfied.

What do you want us to be like ? Thank you marvelous god of apple for your offering ?!

So what you're saying is that it's too much to expect great graphics on a 1300 bucks machine ?
 
macdud said:
The other point you omitted that is pissing people off is the 5400 hd that is stone age technology and totally bottlenecks the computer, making a slow C2D MBA more snappy in everyday simple tasks than the super duper fast SB i5/i7 in the new MBPs..
Click to expand...

This probably would piss me off if I didn't have a 7200rpm 750gb HDD that I'm swapping in from my 2010. I agree that 5400 is sluggish at this point. Still, a cheap upgrade. Agreed though that we shouldn't HAVE to upgrade, it should be standard.
 
forsakengod23 said:
If you want great graphics, get a different machine.

I hate all those comments like : vote with your wallet, if you dont want it , dont buy it and all that retarded stuff.
May i remind you something ?! WE are customers , WE invest money hardly earned on those things, WE have the right to complain and not be satisfied.

What do you want us to be like ? Thank you marvelous god of apple for your offering ?!

So what you're saying is that it's too much to expect great graphics on a 1300 bucks machine ?
Click to expand...

Wow. That is insightful. If you think the world works like that then god help you.

Apple is a company. They want to make money. Lots of money. If you don't like their $1300 machine, don't buy it.

If Apple are doing it wrong, then they will notice when they lose customers. They will then react. It's as simple as that.


BTW To the OP. Thanks for posting that. So far I have just heard people b*tch and moan that it isn't a great upgrade most probably because they already own the last 13" MBP and feel a bit bitter. You are completely right - this is a sizeable upgrade, worth it for the CPU alone.

You can do well by selling on eBay now and upgrading.
 
I agree with the OP. For the average user, the new 13" MacBook Pro is a far better choice than the previous version.

Has anyone confirmed whether or nor Final Cut Pro will load on the new machines? Apple's specs still say Intel integrated graphics are not supported, but I'm assuming that referred to the older 850 design. Not that I'd recommend a 13" Pro (of either generation) for hard core FCP users, but I'm just curious as to what is technically possible on the Intel HD 3000.
 
forsakengod23 said:
If you want great graphics, get a different machine.

I hate all those comments like : vote with your wallet, if you dont want it , dont buy it and all that retarded stuff.
May i remind you something ?! WE are customers , WE invest money hardly earned on those things, WE have the right to complain and not be satisfied.

What do you want us to be like ? Thank you marvelous god of apple for your offering ?!

So what you're saying is that it's too much to expect great graphics on a 1300 bucks machine ?
Click to expand...


Look - do you really think it's possible to FIT a discrete graphics card in the thing? Have you ever opened one up? It's super packed. And btw, you're reference to how much the computer costs isn't fair. You pay for R&D, technology, the size, the design. So yes - when you get a ridiculously well designed, compact, fast computer - it IS normal to get a computer at that price with those specs.

I think my criticism/complement of this machine is reasonable.
 
Here are my reasons for NOT upgrading my 2010 13" MBP to the 2011 13" MBP.

1. No improvement on the screen at all. (Something I stare at a 100% of the time i'm using the laptop)
2. HDD is still the same 5400 RPM.
3. The GPU is worse than the older one.
4. There is supposedly a major redesign for 2012 in the works.
5. Thunderbolt peripherals won't be out till 2012. (At least not any economically priced ones.)
6. As for the CPU, I’m not running any CPU intensive programs on a regular basis.

So from my perspective and needs, the 2011 model isn't worth the hassle of me trying to sell my 2010 and then wait for my 2011 and reinstall everything etc etc...
 
Well I was within my 14 day return period so it was money well spent for me. I don't game and I only do photo work so I welcome the faster processor for my photoshop and aperture.
 
Yep, well said OP. There's a lot of grizzling here from people who aren't upgrading; if it's not worth it to you, then fine. Don't.

For me it's a blazing upgrade from a 2010 White MacBook. Previously the 13" MBP didn't actually seem much better for the cash.

Now: bigger HD, more and faster memory, scorching fast processor (I rip DVDs, mix and process large and multitrack audio files, do digital art stuff), plus all the niceties and build quality of a Pro machine.

Fine if it's not for you, but the blanket badmouthing isn't helpful. The machines are starting to get good reviews too...
 
I just bought the new 13" base model yesterday. I would say if I already had a 2010 Pro, I probably wouldn't have upgraded, but coming from almost anything else, like my 2007 Dell Inspiron, it's a great upgrade. The screen resolution is lower than the 1440x900 on my Dell, but the colors are so much better that it outweighs the downfalls. And with Apple's resale, if next years is that much better, I'll just sell this one and upgrade again.
 
TheNewDude said:
4. There is supposedly a major redesign for 2012 in the works.
5. Thunderbolt peripherals won't be out till 2012. (At least not any economically priced ones.)
Click to expand...

4 and 5 are my only real concerns. I'd bet either this summer or the next refresh they will change the design. That is what I was hoping for this time.

The first thunderbolt peripherals will be higher priced. Also, first doesn't mean best. It'll take a while for this to really kick off.
 
The reason for no screen upgrade is likely the MBA is very popular and the screens can't be made fast enough. Or the quality of the screen itself isn't up to par.

My guess is we'll see a BTO option in the future (pure speculation).
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nb-no) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

danistyping said:
Yes - I am upgrading from a 2010 13" 2.4ghz MBP to the 2011 Core i5 model. Here's why:

Processor - Ridiculously faster than that ancient core 2 duo...the sandy bridge i5 will run all of the software I will need for years to come. I can't say the same about the core 2 duo 2.4. (provided a link to the benchmarks below - the new 13" i5 is almost as fast as last generations 17" i7!)

Graphics - If you are getting a 13" MBP or an Air, you don't need great graphics. Also of importance is the fact that with Sandy Bridge, the intel HD 3000 gets faster depending on the processors speed. This puts it right up there with the nVidia 320m. If you want great graphics, get a different machine.

Screen Res - Yea I'm disappointed they didn't up it, but it's the same I've got now anyway.

RAM gets a slight bump to 1333mhz.

HD facetime camera (I do a ton of skyping so this will be great)


Realistically, if I buy applecare for my 2010 it's the same difference in cost as if I sell the 2010 on ebay and buy the 2011.

So all you people trashing the new MBP...can you please explain to me why this is a disappointing upgrade? The only part of your argument I agree with is the screen res.

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/25/new-macbook-pro-benchmarks-show-massive-improvement/
Click to expand...

God people.

Why are people surprised that the i5 is as good as the i5 and i7 in 2010 mbp. The lynnfield CPUs in the 2010 15 an 17 mbp were all dual cores. Come an... Why shoudnt it be faster.

Also the system won't feel faster then a core 2 duo
Mbp. Because your hdd is bottlenecking your system
 
Well I'm updating! And this is the first time I'm choosing the beefed up system over stock (that i7 makes a big difference for me)

plus whatever I get will be a crazy improvement from this 1.83 CoreDuo, GMA950, 1GB RAM beast I'm running everything on now

Wooo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back