Ive been trying to decide between buying an early 2013 MacBook Pro from MacMall and a late 2013 MacBook Pro from the Apple Store. For the configurations I'm considering, both machines are 15", have basically the same price (around $2,300), and have the same amount of RAM, although they have different HD sizes and processors as described below. Here are the advantages and disadvantages I see in buying the late 2013 model, based on the specs of the two particular machines in question::
Advantages of late 2013 MacBook Pro:
- Thunderbolt 2 instead of Thunderbolt
- 802.11ac wifi instead of 802.11a/b/g/n
- newer Haswell processor (faster/more efficient)
- newer SSD architecture (PCIe instead of SATA)
- longer battery life as per the improvements to the whole line
- slightly lighter
Disadvantages of late 203 MacBook Pro as compared to early 2013 MacBook Pro:
- single graphics processor instead of dual
- smaller hard drive (500GB instead of 750GB)
- slower processor (2.0 instead of 2.8)
Considering that I'm not a graphics-heavy user (i.e., I'm not much of a gamer, don't edit video often, etc.), I'm thinking that the lack of dual graphics processing is probably not that important. I'm more curious about getting the slower processor (2.0 instead of 2.8) but gaining the advantage of the Haswell chip and the faster SSD bus. Putting aside the larger HD, does the early 2013 model's faster processor warrant serious consideration? Or do the other advantages of the later model outweigh it? And how much does the Haswell chip make up for it?
Cheers,
John
Advantages of late 2013 MacBook Pro:
- Thunderbolt 2 instead of Thunderbolt
- 802.11ac wifi instead of 802.11a/b/g/n
- newer Haswell processor (faster/more efficient)
- newer SSD architecture (PCIe instead of SATA)
- longer battery life as per the improvements to the whole line
- slightly lighter
Disadvantages of late 203 MacBook Pro as compared to early 2013 MacBook Pro:
- single graphics processor instead of dual
- smaller hard drive (500GB instead of 750GB)
- slower processor (2.0 instead of 2.8)
Considering that I'm not a graphics-heavy user (i.e., I'm not much of a gamer, don't edit video often, etc.), I'm thinking that the lack of dual graphics processing is probably not that important. I'm more curious about getting the slower processor (2.0 instead of 2.8) but gaining the advantage of the Haswell chip and the faster SSD bus. Putting aside the larger HD, does the early 2013 model's faster processor warrant serious consideration? Or do the other advantages of the later model outweigh it? And how much does the Haswell chip make up for it?
Cheers,
John
