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.
Early 2011 MacBook Pro 13" worth upgrading?
- Thread starter curtoise
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For what its worth i just returned a 2013 13" air because my 13" pro from 2011 was just as good for my uses. My pro has 10gb ram vs 4 on the air. It also has a intel x20m ssd (SATA2) which for my uses is just as fast as the pcie in the air (my uses are parallels to run some office admin software on an external display while web browsing with the occasional word and photoshop on the laptop display). I bought a 15" retina off ebay instead, will give that a try.
The Samsung 840 Pro 256GB
Computer is a little faster but not too much, apps open somehow a couple of seconds faster.
lol. Do you know what a source is?
Crucial M4 has garbage collection feature which is similar to Trim. That's a fact. In fact, all modern SSD has garbage collection feature. That's also a fact.
For your information, a source refers to 'any thing or place from which something comes of is obtained; origin; as a quotation'.
I've added the Samsung SSD yesterday to the MBP and now there is difference on booting time sand opening apps but I've had a 1TB 5200 WD Scorpio before in that machine.
I use this machine attached to a Thunderbolt 27' for work.
I've also purchased a 11" Air 2013 model and I;m in love with this little machine, much faster than the MBP even with the SSD installed, superb battery life too.
The SSD knows nothing about HFS+ or other file systems. That's one of the reasons why TRIM is necessary.
No more 'that's a fact' and 'source'?
Tell me what SSD knows. FAT32? NTFS?
Did you even know what garbage collection feature is? You believe TRIM is necessary but could not give a logical reason behind it. If you don't know the reason then don't tell other that it's necessary.
So you are just going to quote part of the reply and take it personal because you don't know what a source is and give explanation why TRIM is necessary.
Not saying TRIM is necessary or unnecessary but I felt that it's unnecessary for what I have (Crucial M4).
Have a good read of this (http://blog.macsales.com/11051-to-trim-or-not-to-trim-owc-has-the-answer). Now THAT'S source. Not your 'That's a fact' crap.
I gave a real source to OP for reference. You should stay on topic. Oh wait, you can't because you are clueless to what you are saying.
Last edited:
I think this is a valid thread and that the OP has a legitimate question. However, due to the immaturity of few posters this is likely going to get closed so maybe I should post my question below in a new thread.
Here's the question I have: I have the early 13" MBP with i7 2.7GHz processor and 8GB RAM and 500GB HDD (stock). Why and how is the MBA with a 1.3GHz considered a more powerful machine? I understand SSD makes a significant difference in hard drive read and write but overall isn't the MBP a more powerful machine? I don't care so much about the power but more so about the usability as I run a lot of resource heavy applications like MatLab and AutoCAD.
Here's the question I have: I have the early 13" MBP with i7 2.7GHz processor and 8GB RAM and 500GB HDD (stock). Why and how is the MBA with a 1.3GHz considered a more powerful machine? I understand SSD makes a significant difference in hard drive read and write but overall isn't the MBP a more powerful machine? I don't care so much about the power but more so about the usability as I run a lot of resource heavy applications like MatLab and AutoCAD.
When the MBA first came out in 2009, there was a more significant difference between it and the uMBP-13. Since then, that difference has been largely eradicated and the last couple of uMBP-13s (and the rMBP-13) aren't really all that different than the MBA from a computing power standpoint. They only have dual-core processors and iGPUs, just like the MBAs. The biggest differences now are mostly in the quality of the display (rMBP-13 > uMBP-13 > MBA). The uMBP gets the pro moniker largely becuase it's upgradeable. I don't know why the rMBP gets it other than branding.
If you're looking for more "computing power," you have to go with the 15" versions with quad core processors and dGPUs.
__
After using an SSD, any hard drive will feel "slow as hell" irrespective of RAM capacity.
OP: Yes it is worth upgrading. Unless you need GPU (most dont) then a 2011 machine is not much slower than today's gear, CPU wise.
Pop in an SSD and it will be good for years to come unless your needs change.
You make an interesting claim that a 15W 1.3GHz Haswell "isn't really all that different" from a 28W 2.4GHz Haswell "from a computing power standpoint" assuming we are to compare haswell processors only. I use Haswell processors for comparison for convenience, you can replace Haswell with Ivy or Sandy bridge.
The question that arises is why Intel cares to create a 28W processor that "isn't all that different" regarding processing power from a 15W one. Surely, the HD5100 against HD5000 can not be the only difference. I assume benchmark tests like geekbench test the maximum output from a processor and take into account turbo boost. If turbo boost gets disabled somehow than the output between the 1.3GHz and 2.4GHz will be vastly different.
Actually, it is very well explained on Intel's web site: Intel® Turbo Boost Technology—On-Demand Processor Performance. It clearly says "Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its rated upper power limit (TDP) for short durations to maximize performance."
So I don't get tricked into believing a 1.3GHz MBA can be equal, or relatively equal, to the processing power of a MBP.
Last edited:
Note that I said "aren't really all that different."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7058/2013-macbook-air-pcie-ssd-and-haswell-ult-inside
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6063/macbook-air-13inch-mid-2012-review/5
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6409/13inch-retina-macbook-pro-review/9
Don't get tricked by Intel marketing hype.
OK - thank you for that. So by upgrading to the 2013 MBA all I will gain is portability and the new features like PowerNap and so forth, correct? My Pro works well but I wish it could be a little bit faster (especially in terms of hard drive read and write). I could always upgrade my HDD to a SSD but that's $400 right there for 500GB. Trying to figure out if I'm better off selling this and buying the MBA instead (though for the specs I'm looking for it turns out to be well over $1,800).
Pretty much. There's not a super-significant differentiation in any of the 13" models unless you step up from the Core i5 to the Core i7. Since you already have the "upgraded" Core i7 uMBP-13, the base MBA-13 with a Core i5 will be slower. I haven't seen the tests yet, but I would guess that the "upgraded" MBA Core i7 will be slightly slower, but probably not noticeably so for most folks. If you're the type who would notice, you probably need a quad core machine (15") anyway.
That being said disk access will be faster in the new MBAs vs. a uMBP with an SSD because of the ePCI interface. It looks like they're shaking out to be about 50% faster in that regard.
If you're looking for speed, the most important upgrades to your machine are likely going to be an SSD (or hybrid) and additional RAM (if you are paging out), unless you're doing something that's really processor intensive, in which case you should get a 15" machine anyway.