Difference Between these two MBPs?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by MacNuber, Mar 24, 2012.

  1. MacNuber macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #1
    MacMall has the 13" MC724LL/A for $1,219 and the 13" MD314LL/A for $1,424. When looking at the limited specs that they publish, it looks like the difference is a 2.8 Ghz i7 vs. a 2.7 Ghz i7, and a 750 GB HD vs a 500 GB HD. Are there other differences that folks here are aware of for the $200 price differential? I know that they are from different release dates, but on the surface it looks like there's little or no noticeable difference. Thoughts on what is the better buy? I wouldn't be using it for any real heavy lifting.
     
  2. whiteonline macrumors 6502

    whiteonline

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Location:
    California, USA
    #2
    The difference is what you identified.

    Better buy? Probably the lower end of the two. 100 MHz won't be noticeable and disk is cheap.
     
  3. whsbuss macrumors 68040

    whsbuss

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Location:
    SE Penna.
    #3
    Just be careful and check out the specs tab. I almost got the 15" from MacMall which had a 750gb drive at $1679.00 but saw it has OSX Snow Leopard. So Lion upgrade would be required.
     
  4. lamboman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    #4
    Same system, basically, aside from the differences you have noticed. Same processor range, etc. The 2.7GHz is the one to go for without a doubt.

    Unless you can get the old i5 for even less...? I don't know, I'm UK based.
     
  5. AppChat macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    #5
    i dont understand, u have issues comparing the specs side by side? u jsut explained the difference >.>
     
  6. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #6
    Look it up on mactracker to see if they're the same generation. "i3, i5, i7 basically identify everything post core2duo.
     
  7. lamboman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    #7
    The price is so different that some people think that there could be a catch; after all, there have been two different generations of mobile i5/i7 processor, so it is easy to be wary.

    Mactracker is merely an application version of the ever-useful www.apple-history.com.
     
  8. MacNuber thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #8
    My point was that the website didn't go into enough detail on the specs to know whether there were other differences such as the max amount of RAM that could be installed, or max RAM clock speed. Things that could impact upgradability. Based on responses, it sounds like there are no such differences.

    ----------

    Thanks! This website was exactly what I needed to make the comparison.
     
  9. tzd macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Location:
    California
  10. Ccrew macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    #10

    Actually, early 2011 could have either SATA II or SATA III on the optibay. Late 2011 has only SATA III. Important if you plan to lose the optical and do the SSD/HDD setup, as the early could potentially be a speed crapshoot in that you don't know what you're getting until you get it..

    Not that it won't work either way, it will, just at different link speeds.
     
  11. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #11
  12. squeakr macrumors 68000

    squeakr

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #12
    Shouldn't matter or be considered as a speed crapshoot either way, as several SSD manufacturers have found that the SATA3 on the optical bay is not reliable/ stable enough in its operation to recommend a SATA3 device be placed on it (and lots of the caddies don't support SATA 3 anyway). They still only recommend a SATA II device be placed in the optical bay, so it shouldn't make a difference at this time.
     
  13. Ccrew macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    #13
    I would say that buying a SATA III drive and thinking it's going to run at SATA III speeds certainly IS a crapshoot, and your description even backs it up, so thanks. From OWC:


    MacBook Pro 13" models: Apple does not support the use of 6Gb/s drives in the optical bay. While we have observed a high rate of success using SATA 3.0 6Gb/s drives in Apple 13" bays where 6Gb/s link is present, some systems may not operate properly with this setup. For guaranteed reliability/compatibility, we suggest 6Gb/s drives be used in the main drive bay only, and 3Gb/s hard drives or SSDs be used in the optical bay when a two-drive configuration is desired. We cannot guarantee proper or successful 6Gb/s drive operation in the Apple MacBook Pro 13" optical bay.


    Crapshoot.
     
  14. squeakr macrumors 68000

    squeakr

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #14
    I agree, and thought you were saying only the early 2011 was a crapshoot, depending on whether you got SATA 3 support or not. I said it wasn't a crapshoot, as it should matter whether you got one that had SATA3 (be it on an early or late) support as it wasn't recommended to utilize the SATA3 on the optical bay. To me because of these recommendations, it wasn't a crapshoot as it wasn't recommended, so since it shouldn't be done, no crapshoot.

    I can see we are supporting the same though though, just approaching it in different ways.
     

Share This Page