MBPs used Arrandale CPUs, not Lynnfield which are meant for desktops and are used in iMacs, plus they are quad core.
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.
2011 13" MacBook Pro is AWESOME
- Thread starter danistyping
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MBPs used Arrandale CPUs, not Lynnfield which are meant for desktops and are used in iMacs, plus they are quad core.
Summary, you want it because its faster so you came up with some contrived reasons to explain everything away.
Processor - Meaningless for the bulk of software most people will run and the longevity of said processor will be until the next faster one comes out. Face it, people like speed and thereby anything not up to snuff is antiquated. There are people still performing real work making real money on machines much slower than your antiquated 2010 model. Get real.
Graphics, YOU don't need them, however a great many others do. Do not assume your needs have any relationship to the needs of others. Frankly the video sucks for a system of this price, but with that craptastic screen it will probably work out.
Screen - you have to be kidding me, that resolution is for $399 windows laptops
+9000
I went with the 13" i7 in the end (despite really loving my matte screen from my now-defunct '08 MBP) for its portability and the fact that, if I really need the faster drive, I can always SSD myself--maybe in a year or two's time; I'm hoping for 512gb for closer to the current cost of a 256 ($450/500ish). I plan to go to 8gb RAM aftermarket. And i7 > i5 just for the sheer longevity/"futureproofing". I will miss the screen real estate and the antiglare but I will love slipping it into my bag & can always just connect to external monitor.
Honestly, people need to stop bitching. No one is forcing you to buy a computer and no one is keeping you from building your dream PC.
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)
Sounds like a scary voice.
Anyway I'm glad you just have to use the CPU. But some require some gpu power aswell. And in overall this 13 is crapware product.
Also I really don't see the point in having a good CPU with a 5400rpm drive. It will still feel slower then a mba
Sounds like a scary voice.
Anyway I'm glad you just have to use the CPU. But some require some gpu power aswell. And in overall this 13 is crapware product.
Also I really don't see the point in having a good CPU with a 5400rpm drive. It will still feel slower then a mba
And if they did their research, they would not have considered a 2010 13" model either.
The 13" is not, and never has been, a gaming machine.
With all due respect, this is a typical "fanboy" statement. i.e. the idea that users should adapt to the computer rather than computers should be designed to best serve our needs.
As Hellhammer rightly notes, nowadays the CPU is the least important component for overall speed; unless all you do is compression and encryption.
It took a lot of explanation to help people understand that Apple made an excellent decision in sticking with the C2D, contrary to "mainstream marketing sense".
I for one was particularly proud to be a customer of a company that favors actual performance rather than easy marketing of higher theoretical performance.
Now it's a step backward because it gives in to poor marketing rather than offering products that really benefit actual use.
Most MBP purchasers of this refresh won't benefit from the better processor. This alone makes it in my opinion a disappointing update.
Faster wake-up from sleep and launching of Safari thanks to SSD is a significant actually noticeable speed increase.
Faster data transfer rate with an external hard drive thanks to Thunderbolt is a significant actually noticeable improvement.
Faster web browsing of html5 and flash content thanks to nVidia 320m acceleration is a significant actually noticeable improvement.
Higher Geekbench score is not.
Hopefully next update will finally give me a 13" Apple laptop with SSD, 1440x900 resolution, discrete graphics laptop and 25% lighter than the current MBP.
The days when good graphics were important only for gamers are over.
Last edited:
You know, after reading some benchmarks some one else posted, yeah, I'd pick the 2011 over the 2010 (if it were a choice for me, I already made it last year when the 2010 came out and I can't budget in a new one right now). Partly cause the benchmarks so far said the graphics card was worse but not enough that he could tell just playing the game (the software he used testing it told him).
But... I am sick of people just refuting the graphics card with just buy another computer if you want to game.
I want one computer. I don't game much, but I'd like it to be capable of doing some gaming (unlike my 2007 MB that couldn't even run games well that were out at the time. SimCity ran horrid on it once your city got to any decent size, and that's just SimCity). I really don't think that's asking too much.
So yes, I do think it's a valid gripe if the graphics card is so horrid that it won't even play most games out decently (unless they are outdated). I mean my 2010 pretty much fit my needs there. And it sounds like the 2011 would to (granted maybe slightly not as much, but from the reviews I've seen so far it's advantages way outweight that, much faster and I would love to have the potential of the thunderbolt connector).
I mean one thing I will say against my 2010 is that speed wise it wasn't even that much different than my 2007 MB (gee, maybe cause not only was it the same processor but it was only clocked 0.4 GHZ more, Apple couldn't even give it a significant GZH difference in those three years, nevermind my last MB was just a MB and not a Pro as well as being 3 years older). The bigger difference in performance I saw with my 2010 was more due to having more RAM (my 2007 only had 1 GB and it was really starting to hurt it) and it actually being able to run some games.
You're right, for tech savvy enough people, this is a non-issue. But for the vast majority of customers, they won't realize how much more important SSD and better graphics are compared to better CPU. And even if they did, they would not necessarily be willing to pay the extra cost, let alone install it themselves.
So just because after-market SSD are better and cheaper than the ones Apple offer as BTO, does not mean Apple made the right decision in sticking to HDD.
Honestly, he has a point there though. The processor on the new one is going to last a lot longer tech wise on his computer than the 2010 will for its lifetime. Difference? The processor is new tech on the 2011. The processor on the 2010 is so old that the computer I replaced with the 2010 not only used the same processor, but was only .4 GHz less in speed rating.
I suspect that the c2d's will be supported for a decent amount of time and give the 2010 a decent amount of years before it becomes not supported mainly cause Apple still is putting them in the MBA's so I'm sure they'll still support the c2d for a while. But I bet you the new computer will be able to run a lot more new OS's from today than the 2010 computer will be able to.
Agreed here, but I already had my rant on that, probably right above this post
.I think the screen is fine. It's a very gorgeous screen (my laptop's screen is nicer than my monitor I plug it into at home. The colors are just a lot brighter, nicer). I tell you what, that was one thing I noticed on my new 2010 over my 2007, the screen was just so much nicer (and I wasn't even expecting or worrying about the screen being better, it was a nice perk).
Resolution isn't everything. I've actually seen a few people with MBA's point out the MBP's screen is much nicer, it's not as dull and you can see it from more angles and they suspect it's actually a cheaper monitor. I'll pick that over more resolution. Honestly, this is one gripe I think people are making too big a deal over. They probably didn't want to downgrade the quality of monitor and to do a high resolution monitor like the MBA's without sacrificing quality of image, it would raise the cost of the 13" too much. Personally, I don't think it's something I'm willing to pay more for. And I bet Apple felt most consumers feel like me about that (they wouldn't spend more on a 13" just cause the monitor was higher resolution).
You know what, some of you guys just shouldn't buy Apple computers. If you want a 13" computer with discrete graphics, go get a pc. SIMPLE SOLUTION! Why would you whine on a forum? Go tell Apple about it. It's THEIR company and THEIR vision. Remember, part of the reason that you're cornered into buying their laptops is because they won't allow their OS to be installed on 3rd party systems. Why aren't you whining about that? Then you could build your own without hacking.
The market will guide them. If people don't buy it or request a change en mass, they will make the change. That's it! They seem to be doing just fine.
And some of you just seem so capable of making this perfect $1,199 13" computer that I think you should go into the business and start your own companies. Clearly you could blow Apple out of the water.
You're aaaaaaaall talk. Quit your whining and just find a solution.
The market will guide them. If people don't buy it or request a change en mass, they will make the change. That's it! They seem to be doing just fine.
And some of you just seem so capable of making this perfect $1,199 13" computer that I think you should go into the business and start your own companies. Clearly you could blow Apple out of the water.
You're aaaaaaaall talk. Quit your whining and just find a solution.
"but according to Apple" No ****? they dont knock their own product?
Also the benchmarks are for CPU, peoples complaints are about the Intel IGP. In about 3 moths after everyone else gets their refresh out the 13in MBP's secs will be the same as any other $7-800 PC. It's not like Apple did something amazing, they just used Intel's latest chip, like everyone else.
The ONLY benchmark I'm interested in is x3000 vs 320m
Yeah me too, very interested. I heard that the Intel HD3000 speed is directly related to the speed of the Sandy Bridge processor that it's connected to. Can anyone elaborate on this?
Correct, except that in the Air, the CPU is the bottleneck (and no I'm not contradicting myself by saying this, computer design is all about balance).
And the way it's going, the Air will lose the nVidia graphics at the next update in favor of Intel HD3000. And since HD3000's performance largely depends on the processor it's paired with, the HD3000 in the Air (low voltage processor) will be worse than than the already poor HD3000 in the 2011 MBP13.
Except that I prefer Mac OS X and use applications that don't exist on PC. And my "vision" actually used to be Apple's "vision" when they chose to favor better graphics (nVidia + C2D rather than first generation iX).
They clearly changed philosophy with this upgrade, and I'm voicing my feedback as a customer. Nothing wrong with that imo.
What vision? All they did was package Intel's hardware into an aluminum case with a decent display. They let Intel do all the R&D they just have to spend money to get it to fit in their case. How is that different from Dell or HP?
Heck over a year ago you could get an HP laptop with a 5830 GPU for under $1,300 , thats better then the 6750 that Apple is just now using. The 6490M is being beat by $800 laptops that have been using the 5550/6550 for nearly a year. The 15in GPU's are still a year behind the curve, and I'me not even talking gaming rigs.
Are you serious? LOOK AT THE COMPUTER. When I say R&D, I mean the actually unibody laptop, the spacing and fitting of components, internals, size etc. That's how it's different from dell and hp.
Then get the HP. That's all I'm saying.
I totally agreee with the OP.
I am getting one and I am buying it with the 128 GB SSD BTO. Finally the price for an SSD has become resonable, at least for me. Also the prices in my currency was adjusted so the base model actually is 4,5% cheaper.
I am not saying everyone has to be happy about this update. What I am saying though is that I personally am. And from some of the replys in this thread I am not alone.
I do not game and I use handbrake to compress movies for my ipod, so for me it is perfect.
Not trying to offend here, but...
In my world a customer of course have the right to complain...
...about products he/she bought and is not satisfied with.
Do you post on all PC forums complaining that they don't sell their products with OS X ?
I think the way to go when you are not satisfied with the update is to send a mail to Apple and don't buy the 13" MBP.
Apple make a lot of money and the only thing that would make them unhappy is to make less money.
I am getting one and I am buying it with the 128 GB SSD BTO. Finally the price for an SSD has become resonable, at least for me. Also the prices in my currency was adjusted so the base model actually is 4,5% cheaper.
I am not saying everyone has to be happy about this update. What I am saying though is that I personally am. And from some of the replys in this thread I am not alone.
I do not game and I use handbrake to compress movies for my ipod, so for me it is perfect.
Not trying to offend here, but...
In my world a customer of course have the right to complain...
...about products he/she bought and is not satisfied with.
Do you post on all PC forums complaining that they don't sell their products with OS X ?
I think the way to go when you are not satisfied with the update is to send a mail to Apple and don't buy the 13" MBP.
Apple make a lot of money and the only thing that would make them unhappy is to make less money.
Last edited:
Apple probably bought warehouses full of obsolete screens and HDDs for next to nothing. Most people won't know the difference and they will sell every unit for a big profit.
Apple is in the position where they can sell yesterday's components for tomorrow's prices. And they will obviously do that forever if they can.
One can simply buy a more expensive model or get a BTO option, or just wait for next year. They will be just as happy to see you then as today to keep it rolling.
Apple is in the position where they can sell yesterday's components for tomorrow's prices. And they will obviously do that forever if they can.
One can simply buy a more expensive model or get a BTO option, or just wait for next year. They will be just as happy to see you then as today to keep it rolling.
This is a highly simplistic view. You've totally ignored the cost of transition, amongst other things. I have all my files in OS X formats. I own a great deal of software i've paid for on the mac, and i've spent a great deal of time writing scripts and programs so things work the way i want them to.
Moving over to another system is not as easy as you make out, the transition of all of these resources costs time and money to the point that i'd be shelling out another £1000 just for new software. Thats excluding the cost of setup, downtime of installation etc etc.
The poster to which you reply is coming from a position implicitly acknowledging this principle. You've fallen into the classic hero assumption:
Just in case you're not familiar with that assumption:
When faced with a river to cross the hero can swim across, or take the bridge. A superficial observer claims the hero can just take the bridge, "vote with your legs" to echo your position above. This does not take into account that the bridge might be a hundred miles upstream.
Yes sure he could take the bridge, but the bridge is so far away that he might as well swim, the bridge is the superficially better option but he's compelled to swim (he's got princesses to save) - thus he must suffer the temporary discomfort.
This is the principle of being locked into a platform and your reply fails to recognise these forces.
You reprimand someone for their lack of insight when you're even more guilty of the same .. never ceases to amaze me.
LOL! Still AWESOME?
The crap some of you people try to rationalize.
It's amazing all the threads cropping up that have a certain tone of, "I'm trying to convince myself" the MBP13 ain't half bad. Another week and folks will be singing praises to Apple for the IGP and building shrines for Sunday Intel worship.
Anyone is an idiot for paying this kind of money for such a lackluster spec bump. How many freaking CPU cycles do you need these days for facebook, iTunes, iWork and iPorn.
Like a drunken sailor on pay day with loads of cash, Apple continues to stagger backwards and sideways.
Actually, the battery life is the same. Apple just did more realistic testing than last time.