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 MacBook Pro report?
- Thread starter eicca
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A 17'' MBP from 2011 report would be great as well.
Using it on my Late 2011 17". Performance is rock solid, much much better than Yosemite. Using it as my primary OS.
Thus far, running smooth on my late 2011 13." Even though it is beta, it appears to be running better than Yosemite in regards to rendering webpage load, and smooth animation with system preferences etc.
Running on MacBook Pro 17'' early 2011.
Minor issue 1: Some websites on Safari won't load some images. Other browsers load them just fine.
Minor issue 2: Some thumbnails on iTunes won't load, like CD covers on iTunes Store and app icons on App Store. Similar to Safari's issue.
Minor issue 3: Facebook won't respond well when you use the new Safaris's feature to drag the tab to the left hand side do "pin" it. There Facebook won't load properly or won't refresh. A small pain in the ass.
Besides these, all running fast and smooth. I also noticed some reduction on the cooler fan usage as well.
Minor issue 1: Some websites on Safari won't load some images. Other browsers load them just fine.
Minor issue 2: Some thumbnails on iTunes won't load, like CD covers on iTunes Store and app icons on App Store. Similar to Safari's issue.
Minor issue 3: Facebook won't respond well when you use the new Safaris's feature to drag the tab to the left hand side do "pin" it. There Facebook won't load properly or won't refresh. A small pain in the ass.
Besides these, all running fast and smooth. I also noticed some reduction on the cooler fan usage as well.
Thank you
Even if we don't get Metal, that's still good news.
Guys...
Any Vram increase for Intel HD3000 ????
Nope. Still maxed at 512MB. Runs pretty well on my late 2011 13" Pro. Very happy with the performance compared to Yosemite. It feels more perky.
Well, the HD 3000 definitely won't support it, as I believe Metal requires OpenCL which the 3000 is lacking. IIRC, there is also an issue with the Radeon GPU in the 15/17" models where its a different architecture then the rest so its not supported either. Basically, it needs to be a 2012 Mac or newer according to an Apple Dev document I saw (that excludes all tower Mac Pros, FYI). A bit sad, but not deterred. Mine isn't my primary machine anyway.
EDIT: Here are some links to back me up:
Metal system requirements
Netkas: Metal Supported GPUs.
Last edited:
Blah, of course. Always missing the cut by one generation. Oh well... I don't really use this laptop for anything that would really benefit from Metal, but I hope the battery life and OS performance still gets a good boost.
15" (early) 2011 Macbook Pro 2.3 Ghz i7 here. I can confirm that El Capitan is running really well.
Working good on Late 2011 MBP 15 too. Quirks have come only in the form of missing icons for apps in the iTunes App Store. Otherwise very solid.
I don't think the 2011's are getting metal on any level. There was a rumor that a lot of the interface was build on Metal but if that was the case, what are all the 2007 Macs using? I guarantee those don't have Metal at all. Either which way, it hasn't made really any difference on my 2013 Mac Pro. Idk if this machine is just too fast I don't noticed it or what, but the extra-snappiness of the OS is all I notice.
Err, what? Metal will be integrated into 10.11 - it's a software feature which removes the overhead from OpenGL. There is no reason it would not appear on every computer.
I have already discussed this before. Apple said in one of its Dev sessions at WWDC that Metal works on 2012 and newer Macs only. Now, how far does that integration go into the system? We don't know, but Metal requires OpenCL which all 2011 and prior Macs are lacking. See my below post:
Well that's just lovely.
Well, just to sport some data. I've found Geekbench results for the 13" early 2011 MacBook Pro for the 64-bit test on both OS X 10.10.5 and 10.11 (obviously still on beta). And by the results (despite the fact that the second one has 10GB of RAM vs the one running Yosemite that has 16GB) I wouldn't say El Capitan is that much optimised on this model...
10.10.5: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/3207397
10.11: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/3222377
I know this has nothing to do with GPU performance but it gives a glimpse at how the beta for El Capitan doesn't seem to be that optimised on this machine so far.
10.10.5: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/3207397
10.11: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/3222377
I know this has nothing to do with GPU performance but it gives a glimpse at how the beta for El Capitan doesn't seem to be that optimised on this machine so far.