My 13" MBP is fast enough. When it appears slow it's usually due to the network connection. And none of the dogs in the neighborhood have expressed any opinion of any kind to me about MBPs or Dell Laptops or MBAs.
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.
Is the 13 inch MacBook Pro really that SLOW?
- Thread starter NickZac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My 2010 MBP 13 inch runs just fine.
The only time I found a bit of slow downs was while trying to play video games in Mac OS. But if you boot into Windows 7 you get a 5.2 rating and the games are pretty decent. No lag when loading programs or launching iMovie either.
The bad reviews sounds like a bit of hogwash to me.
The only time I found a bit of slow downs was while trying to play video games in Mac OS. But if you boot into Windows 7 you get a 5.2 rating and the games are pretty decent. No lag when loading programs or launching iMovie either.
The bad reviews sounds like a bit of hogwash to me.
if you think it's faster than a "professional" desktop, you are mistaken. if you think a Core 2 can be faster than an i5 or i7, you are also mistaken. Core 2's are slower, period.
however, the processor only matters if your doing CPU-intensive tasks and the CPU is actually the bottleneck. if you're just browsing the web, you can have a billion tabs open and it won't matter (unless they're all playing a Flash video
).
however, the processor only matters if your doing CPU-intensive tasks and the CPU is actually the bottleneck. if you're just browsing the web, you can have a billion tabs open and it won't matter (unless they're all playing a Flash video
).if you think it's faster than a "professional" desktop, you are mistaken. if you think it's faster than an i5 or i7, you are also mistaken. Core 2's simply aren't.
however, the processor only matters if your doing CPU-intensive tasks and the CPU is actually the bottleneck. if you're just browsing the web, you can have a billion tabs open and it won't matter (unless they're all playing a Flash video
I would surely hope people using laptops aren't trying to compare them to desktop performance. The purpose of a laptop has and always shall be mobility. Performance will always be sacrificed for this.
Why is the criticism "largely unfounded" when the laptop costs $1,200 and has a two year old processor?
Best Buy has an HP Pavillion in "brushed aluminum" with an i5 processor, 500GB HD with 4GB RAM for $649-
What is it that you think people are missing?
--
Actual performance and not armchair wrestling figures. The i3 is not as capable as the C2D and many i5 based PC's are not more capable than the 13 inch MBP. Compare the MBP 13 to other laptops which are using i5.
You are failing to look at the entire computer. We don't play with our processors (how sexual), we use the entire system.
if you think it's faster than a "professional" desktop, you are mistaken. if you think a Core 2 can be faster than an i5 or i7, you are also mistaken. Core 2's are slower, period.
however, the processor only matters if your doing CPU-intensive tasks and the CPU is actually the bottleneck. if you're just browsing the web, you can have a billion tabs open and it won't matter (unless they're all playing a Flash video
to what degree you use different components changes depending on how you use the computer. a 3D artist needs a very different computer than a software developer.
I own one an believe me they are anything but slow!!
I have had Age Of Empires III on this and it would run perfectly on high settings, however heat is an issue so I do not use it for gaming anymore (This is probably because I have it on a riser stand which somewhat blocks the vents)
But slow is definitely not a word to describe it. Coming from a single core PC it is a trillion times better, turns on in about half a minute and off in less. Fast enough to edit photos as well.
This is my first mac, and it is annoying because I always thought that I could happily use mac or PC, but now I would never buy another PC unless it was exclusively for games.
I have had Age Of Empires III on this and it would run perfectly on high settings, however heat is an issue so I do not use it for gaming anymore (This is probably because I have it on a riser stand which somewhat blocks the vents)
But slow is definitely not a word to describe it. Coming from a single core PC it is a trillion times better, turns on in about half a minute and off in less. Fast enough to edit photos as well.
This is my first mac, and it is annoying because I always thought that I could happily use mac or PC, but now I would never buy another PC unless it was exclusively for games.
If you are going to compare it to a desktop, then it depends on what the process is. Simply booting up my MBP 13" and launching Chrome is about a minute quicker than on my quad core desktop.
However, if I want to play, say, the upcoming Skyrim, I'd play it on the desktop, but usually just because of the larger display and higher resolution.
However, if I want to play, say, the upcoming Skyrim, I'd play it on the desktop, but usually just because of the larger display and higher resolution.
Oh, and the desktop I am comparing it to is a 'professional-business' level so it isn't designed to be lighting fast. For its individual application, what is most important is reliability and of course, cost. They are Core 2 Duo's with 2gb of RAM, basic graphics drivers and are Windows XP, Vista, or 7, depending on what the individual pharmacy prefers. It would however be amusing to watch my pharmacist play Word of Warcraft while filling my prescription.
There are really only two speeds for a computer: Fast enough, and not fast enough. There are very few tasks where the 13" MBP is not fast enough and a slightly faster processor would be fast enough. For most stuff it is fast enough, there are things where people with a 12 core MacPro wish there machine was faster, but very little in the range where say an i5 processor would make a difference.
On the other hand, it seems there are a lot of applications (mostly games) where Intel integrated graphics is _not_ fast enough, but the graphics in the MBP 13" _is_ fast enough.
Because of the way Intel conducts its business, Apple has a choice between (1) a lot more power meaning a lot shorter battery life, (2) more powerful processor but slow Intel integrated graphics, or (3) bit less powerful processor with decent graphics. And, of course, every other manufacturer has the same choice.
So everyone has to decide who to build for. You can build for the "spec whores" meaning you get a superfast computer with two hours battery life. Or you go for long battery life like Apple, and in that case the design decision they made means more people will find that both processor and graphics are "fast enough".
you're missing the point. the point is different users have different needs. you might find x computer to be no better than your MBP, but that doesn't mean someone else will. Core 2 relative to i5 and i7 is slow, but many don't actually experience that because they aren't doing CPU-intensive tasks.
so once again, is Core 2 slow? yes, relative to the newest processors. does the make any computer using it (including the 13" MBP) slow? no, not necessarily. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you, just making it clear that what's "slow" and what isn't depends on what you're doing with the computer. obviously many people weigh the spec sheet too much and label the MBP slow just because it has an older processor, which is what you're getting at...but some other people here are claiming that quad cores are no faster, which is misleading.
I guess my idea of 'is it fast enough?' is if the majority of users are happy with their computer's performance, and the people who are weighing in show that in the case of the 13 inch MBP, most users are. That is the statistician in me. Yes, user need is infinitely individualized, but computer options are not as they are limited by technology, practically and price. There will never be a computer that will meet every single user's needs and as you said, most users will not experience a difference so this complicates the ability to quantify certain aspects of computers which coincide with real-world capability.
Is the Core 2 Duo slow when compared to the i5/i7 MacBook Pro? My God yes, and bench tests and real world tests shows the difference to be dramatic. My friend's i7 MBP with a 512 SSD is faster than many of current desktop computers. BUT, numerous (obviously not all) i5 PC computers do not have better performance stats than the 13 inch MBP. With what he does, the 13 inch would probably suit his need less than the 17 inch which he has.
From what I gather on quad core, the difference is minimal for basic programs, but for resource heavy programs, the difference is phenomenal. I would gladly purchase a quad core i7 despite the fact that it will be more expensive, have less battery life, and probably will not offered in the 13 inch. Even though I won't be maxing a quad core out anytime soon, logic says that it will take longer to become obsolete hence the additional money is a long-term investment. This is the one point which does hurt the 13 inch as Core 2 Duo is being used less and probably will be obsolete before the ix.
I realize your point and I can tell that you see what I was trying to get at. Not many people on this forum are going to criticize the MBP as this is a Mac forum and many of the people here have actually used the 13 inch and know its capability, where as many of the people who are criticizing its capability have not used it and are going off armchair statistics.
Is the Core 2 Duo slow when compared to the i5/i7 MacBook Pro? My God yes, and bench tests and real world tests shows the difference to be dramatic. My friend's i7 MBP with a 512 SSD is faster than many of current desktop computers. BUT, numerous (obviously not all) i5 PC computers do not have better performance stats than the 13 inch MBP. With what he does, the 13 inch would probably suit his need less than the 17 inch which he has.
From what I gather on quad core, the difference is minimal for basic programs, but for resource heavy programs, the difference is phenomenal. I would gladly purchase a quad core i7 despite the fact that it will be more expensive, have less battery life, and probably will not offered in the 13 inch. Even though I won't be maxing a quad core out anytime soon, logic says that it will take longer to become obsolete hence the additional money is a long-term investment. This is the one point which does hurt the 13 inch as Core 2 Duo is being used less and probably will be obsolete before the ix.
I realize your point and I can tell that you see what I was trying to get at. Not many people on this forum are going to criticize the MBP as this is a Mac forum and many of the people here have actually used the 13 inch and know its capability, where as many of the people who are criticizing its capability have not used it and are going off armchair statistics.
You will get many who will say "It depends on what you are using it for" while true, its doubtful that anyone is going to buy a 13" MBP if they are doing heavy audio or video processing...
The 13" is a lightweight compact notebook, great for basic tasks such as word processing, web browsing and productivity, not really appropiate for heavy video, audio or graphics heavy tasks.
So is the 13" good enough for its purpose? Of course it is which is why I bought one.
The 13" is a lightweight compact notebook, great for basic tasks such as word processing, web browsing and productivity, not really appropiate for heavy video, audio or graphics heavy tasks.
So is the 13" good enough for its purpose? Of course it is which is why I bought one.
The only people who are knocking the 13 inch MBP are ignoramuses who don't understand why Apple decided to stick with the C2D processor in the 13 inch MBP, although it moved to the i series for the 15 and 17 inch models. Pay no attention to the spec whores. Because of Intel's draconian licensing restrictions imposed on users of its i series chips, Apple made an informed decision to give up a little processing power in order to allow them to include the terrific NVIDIA 320M integrated GPU in the 13 inch MBP. Otherwise Apple would have been stuck with Intel's pitiful GPU integrated with its i series chips. Apple didn't have to worry about that in the 15 and 17 inch models because there is enough room in the cases of the larger MBPs to accommodate a discrete GPU.
My grandson got an entry level 13 inch 2.4GHz MBP for college in August. He uses it heavily and loves it. I recently got a 13 inch Macbook Air, which has a 2.13 GHz C2D chip, which is even slower than the entry level MBP's. No matter, both handle a variety of tasks with great graphics, laudable speed, and efficiency. In the bargain, Apple markets the thinnest, lightest, and best looking, in my opinion at least, line of laptops available
Asus has a 13in with higher resolution(1366x768), Core i3 2.53, and GT415M for $825 and is rated over 9hrs (10 if I recall).
Acer has a Core i5 2.53, 5650 1GB, and is $999, in a 13in also 1366x768, also rated over 7hrs.
The Asus will meet/beat the 13in Apple at lower cost, and the Acer in on par with the 15in macbook for under the cost of the 13in pro. They are both also under an inch thick.
If you care about performance 13in then you aren't getting a 13in MBP.
Acer has a Core i5 2.53, 5650 1GB, and is $999, in a 13in also 1366x768, also rated over 7hrs.
The Asus will meet/beat the 13in Apple at lower cost, and the Acer in on par with the 15in macbook for under the cost of the 13in pro. They are both also under an inch thick.
If you care about performance 13in then you aren't getting a 13in MBP.
I had the late 2008 aluminum unibody macbook and even though the specs were a tad bit lower than the 2009 13' macbook pros, I found the 2008 macbook to not really impress me. My current i5 MacBook Pro on the other hand is great! The 13 inch pros are great computers but i'd rather just go w/ the 15 inch.
If we armchair wrestling, then yes, these are faster. In real time, this isn't fully the case.
You can also compare the Asus (U30JC) to the MBP in the link I initially provided, and you can see that the Asus does not even meet the MBP, let alone beat it.
And its battery lasts an identical time to the MBP; both rate about 10 hours and both actually work in the 7hr range.
If you care about 'performance 13in', then you probably aren't going to wind up getting a 13 inch laptop at all.
And its battery lasts an identical time to the MBP; both rate about 10 hours and both actually work in the 7hr range.
If you care about 'performance 13in', then you probably aren't going to wind up getting a 13 inch laptop at all.