Detailed MacWorld review of 2011 MBP now online

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by DarwinOSX, Mar 3, 2011.

  1. DarwinOSX macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #1
    http://www.macworld.com/article/157931/2011/03/early2011macbookpro.html
    Much more detailed review and benchmarks than the initial article including game benchmarks.
    I have to say I'm now convinced that the HD 3000 GPU is really not a great idea. I wasn't thrilled with it before but thought it was acceptable. Now I think Apple should have put a discrete GPU in the MBP as well. On the other hand the 6490M GPU did better than I thought it would.
     
  2. altecXP macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #2
    Looks like if I want a 13in and do a few games the 2.66 refurb is the best buy.
     
  3. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020

    aznguyen316

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
  4. Whitelightning macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    #4
    This is awesome... It does a good job of putting to rest my concerns for battery...

    "We view the movie in full screen mode with screen at full brightness, and AirPort connected"

    "In our tests, the new MacBook Pros all lasted between 5 hours, 39 minutes (the 17-inch 2.2GHz Core i7 model) and 5 hours, 53 minutes (the 13-inch 2.3GHz Core i5 model). Those results are better than the results for last year’s line."

    That is pure win right there. I know for certain with the Air at full brightness and airport on, there is no way it lasts anywhere near 5 hours.
     
  5. DarwinOSX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
  6. marshallbedsaul macrumors 6502a

    marshallbedsaul

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #6
    i am happy seems my 2.66 13'' is pretty nice compared to the newest one
     
  7. DarwinOSX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #7
    Which Air? I have the 13" and it lasts a lot longer than 5 hrs.
     
  8. Whitelightning macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
  9. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020

    aznguyen316

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #9
    with the given battery drain test? It prob last 5 hours under normal, but not the test they provided.
     
  10. AppleGoat macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    #10
    I take those Speed Figures with a grain of salt, there was not such a profound difference between Core2Duo offerings last year; otherwise, it would have paid to upgrade. And, most certainly 2.66 C2D w/ integrated graphics is NOT on par with the i5 2.53 w/ discrete graphics from last year!!! Also, attempt to comprehend what I circled...

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Mackilroy macrumors 68040

    Mackilroy

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
  12. sydenham macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    #12
    I found the article a bit slippery. They only used last years 15 and 17 2.53 i5 chips for comparison. They completely ignored last years i7.
     
  13. DarwinOSX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #13
    Yeah Bare Feats is trying to pull a fast one....:rolleyes:

    Or you could actually read the article where they say;

    "3. We know you are anxious to see how other models of the 2011 MacBook Pro perform and how all 2011 models compare to the previous models. We have partnered with various remote mad scientists to produce that info in a future article once we have sufficient data. (We would love to buy one of everything to test it ourselves but our budget can't handle that.)"
     
  14. Buck987 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    #14
    not a review.. a bunch of benchmarks with some in question.
     
  15. kitzuki macrumors regular

    kitzuki

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #15
    prob a typo lol
     
  16. Mackilroy macrumors 68040

    Mackilroy

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    #16
    Wait, first you're whining about MacWorld and then you're blaming Barefeats for it?

    And how are they trying to pull a fast one? :confused: Or are you rolling your eyes at that the poster before you? Heh.
     
  17. grahamnp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #17
    Perhaps it is not the benchmark everyone wants to see but the 2.2ghz i7 is selling at the same price point as last year's i5 2.5 so it is a valid comparison.
     
  18. AppleGoat macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    #18
    Well that chart I displayed is ridden with errors. I noticed more after posting. With regards to the Arrandale processors, Macworld believes the greater the clock speed, the slower the computer. For example, the i7 2.66ghz is slower than the i5 2.4ghz and 2.53ghz, and also slower than the 2010 13-inch Core2Duo model with the same clock speed.
     

Share This Page