2011 13" MacBook Pro is AWESOME

[maflynn]

Contests on you new baby.

Im with the other folks who don't see this update as all that great. I see it as that apple had go to the i5 because intel stopped making the C2D and going there meant that they'd have to live with the intel I integrated gpu

The new 2011 13 MBP Isn't bad but being an owner of a 2010 MBP with limited funds I cannot justify spending that much money so soon after purchasing my current MBP

it's your money and your decesion so enjoy your laptop

 

[Scottsdale]

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.

How about eliminate the completely wasted space of an optical drive that most of us hate. It either needs to be relevant with BluRay or eliminated preferably so there's room to a real GPU. The sad thing here is Intel did this to Mac users by forcing Nvidia out of the way. They were rewarded for being pure evil. Intel sucks!

It would be nice if Apple sold a 13" MBP that wasn't outclassed by the MBA. With higher resolution display, Nvidia 320m and SSD standard, the MBA is more Pro than the MBP.

Seriously wake up... Mac users should be complaining for being pitched this garbage and should demand an investigation into why Intel's IGP is in the MBP at all - as consumers and pros alike would be better off without being forced to not just buy the Intel IGP but Intel's chipset too. I am just sick about losing Nvidia and you all should be too. Until we hold true evil like Intel accountable for their actions we are empowering them by buying their garbage. Shear evil and disgusting and people are defending Intel. I just don't understand why Apple wants to be.in bed with Intel, disgusting to say the least.

 

[rembaz]

The main point is, you can always change HDD for SSD (and for sure I'll) but you never can change the processor for another one. Vertex 3 with 500MB/s speed will come soon and with this "little" upgrade, will be AIR just a calculator,although a very nice and light one

 

[ajohnson253]

Glad you are loving your 13"!! That's awesome. I've been rockin my duo core 09' for a couple years & it still behaves like I just pulled it out of the box. You gotta love Apple products don't ya

 

[gnasher729]

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

All the time before this release MacRumors was full and full with people complaining about the Core 2 Duo processor in the MBP, and how the x3000 was as good as the 320m. And now, when Apple replaced the Core 2 Duo with something a lot faster, suddenly CPU performance is completely unimportant and graphics is what matters. Fortunately, Apple still sells the MacBook with Core 2 Duo and 320m.

The new 2011 13 MBP Isn't bad but being an owner of a 2010 MBP with limited funds I cannot justify spending that much money so soon after purchasing my current MBP

There has never been any upgrade that justified replacing a one year old Macintosh. That's just an impossibly high goal post. The actual goal is giving new customers something to buy that is worth the money; and Apple has clearly reached that goal.

 

[DrJohnnyN]

Glad you are loving your 13"!! That's awesome. I've been rockin my duo core 09' for a couple years & it still behaves like I just pulled it out of the box. You gotta love Apple products don't ya

+1
Quality.

 

[tigress666]

There has never been any upgrade that justified replacing a one year old Macintosh. That's just an impossibly high goal post. The actual goal is giving new customers something to buy that is worth the money; and Apple has clearly reached that goal.

True, but this one actually has a significant jump in processor I wouldn't say some one was too silly jumping to the new one this time .

But hey, I'm comforting myself with the fact when I can justify (or have the money) upgrading again, next time there is going to be a significant jump in speed (going from a 2.0 GHz c2d to a 2.4 c2d was a pretty subtle change in speed. Enough that the computer wasn't annoying me anymore but I think that might be more due to more RAM in the new one). And hopefully by that time they'll have figured out the graphics card problem that the graphics card will also be an upgrade from what this one has. So by the time I'm ready to upgrade, it will be a true upgrade (this time it was more for the new case design as my old computer was just a MB without the no button trackpad which I gotta say is totally worth it - I *love* my MBP's trackpad and it's black bezel screen and it's backlit keyboard, more RAM, and better graphics card though I would totally not have complained if the speed was better too).

 

[commander.data]

All the time before this release MacRumors was full and full with people complaining about the Core 2 Duo processor in the MBP, and how the x3000 was as good as the 320m. And now, when Apple replaced the Core 2 Duo with something a lot faster, suddenly CPU performance is completely unimportant and graphics is what matters. Fortunately, Apple still sells the MacBook with Core 2 Duo and 320m.

Exactly. Things are always a compromise between space, cost, thermal room, and the varied needs of a diverse customer base.

http://www.techyalert.com/2011/02/25/macbook-pro-2010-vs-macbook-pro-2011/

Besides actual benchmarks show that the HD 3000 is faster than the 320M in OS X. Yes, the 320M leads in Windows indicating it is mostly driver performance variation, but the point is that Apple's GPU selection ebbs and flows to keep all suppliers on their toes. nVidia is on the way out this generation so Apple's focus on their drivers is going to be winding down so going with a nVidia GPU at this time is just going to leave users driver orphaned in OS X. Admittedly, perhaps Apple could have put the HD 6490 in there since AMD GPUs seem to be on the way in. However, one thing that is consistent going forward is that everyone is moving toward GPU/CPU integration, and Intel IGPs in processors are here to stay. Based on these OS X benchmarks that show the HD 3000 faster than the 320M, Apple is correctly addressing this trend by dedicating resources toward improving the Intel IGP drivers.

People can point to theoretical comparisons under ideal driver conditions or equal CPU power for both parties, but the fact appears to be that currently when an end user picks up a MacBook Pro and runs in OS X, which is what Apple cares about, the HD 3000 is in fact as fast or faster than the 320M. So Apple can point to an improvement, even on the GPU front, so that is sufficient, even if it's not revolutionary.

 

[ahideg]

Well, after being underwhelmed at the update and hoping for a redesign, I bit the bullet and upgraded to the 13" i5 base model. Coming from a 2007 C2D MacBook, it's a very welcome upgrade. Even if a redesign does happen late this year or early next, I figure I'll just sell this and upgrade for a small price. I'm in love with this thing! The quality is top notch. I was a bit dismayed at no 1440x900 resolution, as I really liked it in person on the Air, but I have a 23" LCD that I hook into when I want/need extra screen space, so it's fine. No regrets here!

 

[NelsonB]

I read this whole thing to myself in the Napoleon Dynamite voice.

haha so did i thats hilarious man.. way to silence the troll xD

 

[Adidas Addict]

How about eliminate the completely wasted space of an optical drive that most of us hate. It either needs to be relevant with BluRay or eliminated preferably so there's room to a real GPU. The sad thing here is Intel did this to Mac users by forcing Nvidia out of the way. They were rewarded for being pure evil. Intel sucks!

It would be nice if Apple sold a 13" MBP that wasn't outclassed by the MBA. With higher resolution display, Nvidia 320m and SSD standard, the MBA is more Pro than the MBP.

Seriously wake up... Mac users should be complaining for being pitched this garbage and should demand an investigation into why Intel's IGP is in the MBP at all - as consumers and pros alike would be better off without being forced to not just buy the Intel IGP but Intel's chipset too. I am just sick about losing Nvidia and you all should be too. Until we hold true evil like Intel accountable for their actions we are empowering them by buying their garbage. Shear evil and disgusting and people are defending Intel. I just don't understand why Apple wants to be.in bed with Intel, disgusting to say the least.

I sold my late 13" MBA and have just ordered the new i5 13" MBP. I couldn't live with the MBA for a few reasons:

1: The fan noise when doing anything other than light surfing.

2: The awful, awful screen quality, it may be higher res but the latest MBA's have dreadful quality screens, very cheaply done.

3: The trackpad on the MBA is nowhere near as responsive as on the 13 MBP, thought this may have just been mine but tried numerous others in Apple store and they were all the same.

4: Didn't think I would but I miss the backlit keyboard a lot.

5: intel 3000 and the 320M are both pretty crappy anyway, so I doubt I would notice any difference at all.

 

[Grouchy Bob]

All the time before this release MacRumors was full and full with people complaining about the Core 2 Duo processor in the MBP, and how the x3000 was as good as the 320m.

???

What posts were you reading? This joint was in revolt after the IGP rumor.

The actual goal is giving new customers something to buy that is worth the money; and Apple has clearly reached that goal.

Uh-boy.

Never mind. (Another Apple shill).

 

[Grouchy Bob]

dont buy a mac then. your choice.

Ya think?

but the 2011 mbp models are really, no matter what you think.

You do realize all my input in this thread refers to the 13" MBP right? One day, all MBP's had non-integrated graphics. The very next day, one was singled out to "magically" not need it any more because:

A.) Intel muscled Nvidia out of the picture
B.) Apple didn't care.
C.) Apple could have done something about it.
D.) Apple bowed to Intel and didn't care.

what the hell are people complaining about?

75 posts here and you are still asking this?

apple makes good computers for quite high prices, but the software of mac OSX and the hardware of them is worth it IMO.

Well, IMO the new 13MBP sucks ass. (So who is right?)

And who is even talking about OSX?

if you dont like it dont buy it. go buy a windows, its your choice.

Again, you write this like it's some kind of revelation. (I refer you to my sig)

You guys just keep wavin' your silly-assed $1200 geekbench scores around like they actually mean something.

Now... get back to twittering at 2.3ghz.

 

[DustinT]

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/

I just picked up a 2011 mbp 13" with the i5. I'm completely satisfied with it. The perfromance is terrific with every program I've thrown at it. Plus, the overall size of the laptop and screen are pretty much Goldilocks to me, just right. I do have a slight preference for the screen on the 2010 mba buts its not really a large difference.

All I can say is if you don't think the 2011 mbp is worth it don't buy one. Personally, I think its fine.

 

[.Max.]

I was impressed at the new MBP range, the 13" less soo... but its still a great spec bump... also its cheaper in the uk because the prices were bumped from 999 to 1020 and have now gone back to 999.. Not much but every little helps also I was amazed at quadcore even in a base 15".. I really hope they do something like this for the iMac... like put quad in a 21"


Sent from my HTC Vision

 

[SmoothJ]

I just picked up a 13in MBP with the i7 and so far I love it. I thought it was going to be small and I will miss my Dell which has a 14.1in screen, but this is fine.

Plus microcenter, got to love them, has them on sale of sorts, so I figure why not

Everyone needs to realize what you are getting and how you will use your system. If you need to play games, then go for the 15 or the 17, or just build a nice desktop.

I mainly picked the MBP 13 for surfing the net and checking my email - my couch laptop.

 

[KohPhiPhi]

I just picked up a 13in MBP with the i7 and so far I love it. I thought it was going to be small and I will miss my Dell which has a 14.1in screen, but this is fine.

I mainly picked the MBP 13 for surfing the net and checking my email - my couch laptop.

This is precisely what I was talking about on my previous post... an i7 for surfing the net and checking emails... 99% of the 13" customer base does not need an i7. It's an overkill and certainly not balanced with the poor hard drive, GPU and screen resolution. Apple would have created a more balanced machine if it was i3 + SDD + better GPU/screen. The average 13" MBP user would have benefited much more from such setup.

 

[smetvid]

Ya think?



You do realize all my input in this thread refers to the 13" MBP right? One day, all MBP's had non-integrated graphics. The very next day, one was singled out to "magically" not need it any more because:

Not true. The 320 was also an IGP. It just happened to be made by Nvidia. It was built into the MB and it shared ram with the system and for the most part pretty slow compared to a dedicated gpu. The Intel 3000 works exactly the same except it shares 384GB of ram instead of 256MB. Intel just happens to make the IGP now instead of Nvidia or AMD.

Some games seem to be about the same with both IGP's. Some are worse and some are better. Basically at the end of the day both IGP's are low end and force the user to use low end settings in games. Nothing has really changed there. It's sort of like the difference between a comparable Nvidia and AMD gpu. Some games will run better on one while others will run better on the other gpu. At the end of the day however they are still in the same class. It is safe to say that the new Intel gpu give or take is in the same class as the Nvidia 320.

This is not a upgrade or a downgrade but a cross grade and nothing more.

 

[danistyping]

Seriously wake up... Mac users should be complaining for being pitched this garbage and should demand an investigation into why Intel's IGP is in the MBP at all - as consumers and pros alike would be better off without being forced to not just buy the Intel IGP but Intel's chipset too. I am just sick about losing Nvidia and you all should be too. Until we hold true evil like Intel accountable for their actions we are empowering them by buying their garbage. Shear evil and disgusting and people are defending Intel. I just don't understand why Apple wants to be.in bed with Intel, disgusting to say the least.

Intel is evil? You are sick about losing nvidia? They're businesses! I think you need to turn off your computer and go for a hike dude. We are talking about a tech company, not a political regime. The solution to ALL of your bitching is simple. Either ask Apple to let OS X be installed on 3rd party computers, that way you can use whatever you want, or just get something else that has nvidia. You are complaining about products that you're cornered into using because of their policy. It sounds like you just don't like Apple! SO DONT BUY THEIR STUFF AND STOP YOUR WHINING!

 

[akhbhaat]

Basically at the end of the day both IGP's are low end and force the user to use low end settings in games. Nothing has really changed there.
...
It is safe to say that the new Intel gpu give or take is in the same class as the Nvidia 320.
...
This is not a upgrade or a downgrade but a cross grade and nothing more.

+1 to all of the above.

I don't know why people here fail to understand that the 320M is a very, very low end GPU. It's really only suitable for playing five or six year old 3D games. Even the 6750M in the 15/17" models is fairly weak in the grand scheme of things. I don't see the Intel IGP as a good thing, but it's hardly a significant downgrade, either.

Besides, arguing about whose laptop is a better gaming machine is like arguing about who has the fastest horse when most of the gamers out there are driving cars (desktops). I didn't even bother playing shooters on my old Macbook (with the mighty 320M) because the experience was so vastly inferior to my homebuilt desktop that I simply couldn't enjoy it. That being said, I am curious to see how the new i5 will do with some CPU intensive strategy games.

 

[Cicatrix]

This is precisely what I was talking about on my previous post... an i7 for surfing the net and checking emails... 99% of the 13" customer base does not need an i7. It's an overkill and certainly not balanced with the poor hard drive, GPU and screen resolution. Apple would have created a more balanced machine if it was i3 + SDD + better GPU/screen. The average 13" MBP user would have benefited much more from such setup.

I would agree with you on this.

I think the only reason they didn't bump up the screen res on the 13" is that it would have ate into the MBA sales too much. I sort of wish the Macbook Air never existed. They should have just came out with a redesign of a slim MBP like a Macbook Pro Air 13", done. It's mildly aggravating. Oh well.

 

[Catholic13]

I have never felt comfortable buying a used computer on ebay. It's too much of a risk for too high of a cost.

 

[DudeMartin]

I come from using like a 19" monitor with a PC to a 13" MBP 2011 which I bought yesterday (I was ECSTATIC). I don't see any problem with the resolution. I think people are paying attention to the numbers more than their practical meanings. I can't imagine how I would truly benefit from a larger resolution, at least on a 13" screen. The current resolution already makes the 13" feel bigger than it is, so I don't see how a bigger resolution is 'mandatory.'

As far as specs, I never owned a MacBook Pro before - but it runs Team smoothly and I have yet to see the machine be slow. I am also like an 'intermediate user' - lots of programs on at all times, plays mildly demanding games regularly, and I have not seen this computer falter once.

Now I just wonder how long it would take me to export files, I remember on my PC, to export like 10 minutes of 640x480 video took me like 2 hours - I wonder how long it would take me on this 13" beast.


Overall, I think this refresh was an overall upgrade. Better camera and a much better processor, along with a brand new I/O - sounds good to me!

 

[SantoW]

2: The awful, awful screen quality, it may be higher res but the latest MBA's have dreadful quality screens, very cheaply done.

Read this a couple times now butnobody has ever expanded in it... What is the difference between the two? Neither is anti-glare correct?

Also curious if you're going with a ssd in your 13" pro; I'm still torn between the pro and either a 11 or 13 air...

 

[Adidas Addict]

Read this a couple times now butnobody has ever expanded in it... What is the difference between the two? Neither is anti-glare correct?

Also curious if you're going with a ssd in your 13" pro; I'm still torn between the pro and either a 11 or 13 air...

The screen on the air is just a regular screen with less reflections as it has no glass front like the glossy MBP screens. I will try to expand on why it's an awful screen.

1: The colours are dull and have no 'pop', no matter how much you try to adjust the screen in the profile it never gets close to the 13" MBP screen.

2: Viewing angle's compared to the 13 MBP are terrible, even with it on your knee your constantly tilting the display trying to get it in that 1mm so it looks anything like decent.

3: Contrast, everything is over white no matter what brightness you have the display on.

Like I say, in my experience slight drop in resolution you have on the 13 MBP is more that worth it against the new MBA screen. I think they tried so hard to make the MBA meet the new pricepoint that they really saved money on the screen, and it shows.

As for the SSD in my new i5 13MBP, I doubt it, my use doesn't really warrant one and the only thing I liked on the MBA was the quick boot up. As I rarely turn off my laptop (just close it into sleep) I won't miss it much. If I was replacing my iMac and Laptop with a bigger MBP then I may have splashed out for an SSD.