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" MBP a "Pro in name only"?
- Thread starter bniu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are a heck of a lot of 15" laptops these days that only offer 1366x768. Makes the pixel density on the 13" MBP look not too shabby.
Indeed, but it seems to be some sort of driver issue as anandtech mentioned in it's review because on the osx side it handles the steam games impressively! I have the SNB MBP and am very impressed with the gpu. It runs HL2 more smoothly than the 330m in my former MBP.
It loses about 150 points to the 320M. Not the 330M- the 330 is not mentioned anywhere in the test in the post you linked to.
Both the 320M and HD3000 are integrated GPUs and the tests were performed in OS X with Apple's highly optimised drivers so not quite as impressive as you think
Maybe with well developed drivers it can keep up, but in reality, for gaming in Windows (where the graphics really matter), the Intel drivers are basically useless while nVidia has extremely finely tweaked drivers.
Case-in-point:
I had a 13" Pro (has since been returned)- 2.7GHz i7, 4GB RAM, 256GB SSD, HD3000 graphics. Windows 7 Ultimate with the default Boot Camp Intel graphics drivers.
Still have my 11" Air- 1.6GHz C2D, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD, 320M. Windows 7 Ultimate with the latest nVidia graphics drivers from laptopvideo2go.
Test was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, native res, ultra [high] settings, both plugged in and the High Performance power management profile selected.
Both had nothing else running other than a stock copy of Windows.
The Pro achieved around 20 fps while the Air achieved 30+ fps.
These numbers carried over to several special ops missions so it's not just because nothing was happening on the screen.
I was extremely surprised, seeing as how the SB i7 was benchmarked to be around 2x faster than the Core 2's and I really did think that the processor would make up for what the graphics lacked. Still, real world results don't lie.
I don't doubt that the HD3000 can perform similar to the 320M if you're in OS X with the highly optimized drivers from Apple. For many users it matters most in Windows for gaming though and that's where the pathetic Intel drivers fall flat on its face.
Of course Pro is a marketing term. So is Apple, MacBook, Lion, etc. Apple is in the business of creating AND selling products. They will name their products in a way that they hope will appeal to consumers. In this case, I think they are trying to catch the eye of business users. Fortunately, I think the "pro" name also appeals to regular consumers who want something more than the MacBook "computer for everyone."
As for maligning the 13" because of its specs, if I were Apple, I would want more than just the size of a computer model to distinguish products within the same line, and I think we can expect that it will NOT be just a smaller version of the 15 and 17 inch. Like any company, they will reward users who buy more expensive models by providing more options. I fail to see how the 13" is "behind" its brethren when it uses scaled down versions of the same chipset, HDD, and screen.
I find it curious when people are so quick to go to the negative and assume.
Get angry, suspicious and call troll, when indeed it could not be further from the truth.
I've been using Apple Laptops since the very first PowerBook 100 series shipped. I've had many PowerBooks / MacBook Pros. I'm simply part of a discussion in which I reinforce my fondness for Mac Laptops, and speak from an informed point of view on the truth from one brand to another as someone who owns and uses them heavily day in and day out.
The two below are what I currently own, and use everyday for work. These provide a comparison of "Pro Class Laptops".
It's just a bit off, that a discussion get's turned into something it's not, because some Apple enthusiasts have to get all worked up. My post was calm and very matter of fact. Neither bashing or advocating for any brand or model. Yet revealing my personal preference for Macs.
2011 15" MacBook Pro
Intel 2.2 Quad Core i7
8GB DDR3 1333 ram
256GB Apple SSD
SuperDrive
Hi-Res, Anti-Glare display
Intel HD Graphics 3000 with 384MB DDR3 Shared SDRAM
Thunderbolt
Facetime
SDXC card slot
FireWire 800 port
Two USB 2.0 ports
NO Integrated Mobile Broadband
WiFi 802.11a/b/g compatible
-----------------------------------------------------
2011 15" ThinkPad W520
Intel Core i7-2920XM (2.5GHz 8MB L3 1333 FSB)
NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Graphics with 2GB DDR3 Memory
15.6" 1920x1080 with Color Sensor Calibrator
16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 SDRAM 1333MHz
2- 240GB OCZ Vertex3 V3LT SSD RAID
DVD Multiburner
Express card slot & 4 in 1 Reader & Smart Card
Three USB 2.0 Ports
720p Camera
Bluetooth 3.0
Integrated Intel Centrino Advanced-N + WiMAX 6250
Integrated Mobile Broadband Sierra Wireless Gobi 3000
Fingerprint reader
Windows 7 Professional X64
You misunderstood my post (what was that about assumptions, again?). I was entirely sincere. No offence intended.
You just rambled on about how the 'Pro' was a bad product without any reasoning what so ever, oh 'lacking' something-or-other? I thought it might have been a piss-take...
I do appreciate your stance though, and I often feel the same way at times.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the 15" 2.2GHz i7 have an AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1GB GDDR5 *as well* as the Intel HD 3000? You also omitted the 720p camera from the MBP.
There is nothing Pro in playing games... Get a PS3 for that..or not 
The mb pro 13' is a very capable machine and in its latest form worthy of the Pro tag. Resolution could have been better, I concede that, but the screen is of a good quality nevertheless
The mb pro 13' is a very capable machine and in its latest form worthy of the Pro tag. Resolution could have been better, I concede that, but the screen is of a good quality nevertheless
Let's be honest for a second. The white 13" needs to be eliminated from their line up, which I am positive that is the direction Apple is moving in.
Remember a few years ago when Apple had the 13" aluminum MB that looked just like the current 13" MBP? I think that is what they should go back to instead of the white poly ones, and then keep the 13" MBP; perhaps they can somehow fit a LB in their that has a dedicated graphics card in their keep their marketing inline with the name.
Perhaps the firewire makes it a "pro"? I had a 15" 2.2 Quad i7 for few months, but sold it due to it being to valuable a computer for what I use it for and I would rather sell it at a higher price while I could and save the money I saved by buying a base 13", which isn't really that bad. I do miss my beautiful Matte screen, but whatever. This 13" is faster than my Penryn 2.5GHZ early 08", which I had for several years. It is as much a "Pro" as that one was.
Remember a few years ago when Apple had the 13" aluminum MB that looked just like the current 13" MBP? I think that is what they should go back to instead of the white poly ones, and then keep the 13" MBP; perhaps they can somehow fit a LB in their that has a dedicated graphics card in their keep their marketing inline with the name.
Perhaps the firewire makes it a "pro"? I had a 15" 2.2 Quad i7 for few months, but sold it due to it being to valuable a computer for what I use it for and I would rather sell it at a higher price while I could and save the money I saved by buying a base 13", which isn't really that bad. I do miss my beautiful Matte screen, but whatever. This 13" is faster than my Penryn 2.5GHZ early 08", which I had for several years. It is as much a "Pro" as that one was.
A lot of people look at the 13" MacBook's processor and HDD options and automatically assume that you're not getting much (or anything) for the $200 price difference between that and the 13" MBP. I had to debate for quite a while last year when I was buying my first Mac laptop between the two, and I can say that I'm glad that I went with the MBP, the extra money has paid off for the SD card slot and backlit keyboard alone. As others have said, the "Pro" moniker is purely a marketing tag by Apple, and what's a Pro machine for one profession may not be a Pro machine for another. For example, if I were a writer, or a basic office worker then an 11" MBA would suffice as a "pro" for me, if I were an independent filmmaker, then I'd probably want a maxed out 17" model for editing and rendering (just examples of course).
This post is soo true.
Mark Zuckerberg did a lot of work on Facebook on a netbook, hardly a Pro machine but did the job non the less. The "Pro" tag is more marketing term, sometimes it annoys me when people compare their 13" "Pro"s to my 15". The thing is i have come to realise is the "Pro" tag means different things in the eye of the beholder, if you want Mac OSX in a 13" machine then the 13" MBP will do a "Pro" job of it. I could list further examples but hopefully my point is understood.
As many have posted, I agree that "pro" has nothing to do with gaming. Not sure who buys a 13" Mac notebook for gaming, it's just not intended or specced for gaming. Also, about the resolution, I have seen much worse. Many PC laptops use 1280x800 for 15" and 1440x900 for 17" (I have seen both fairly recently), and my family just recently got a 15" toshiba that is 1366x768. 1280x800 is not that bad. It's not great, especially compared to the other sizes or the MBA, but it could be worse.
You need to look at the pixel density as well. If it gets too high, fonts look too small, but the lower it is, the more the screen looks blocky
13" MBP has approx 113 PPI (pixels per inch).
15" Std has 110
15" High res has 128
17" has 132
27" Cinema Display has 109
a 1366x768, 15" laptop has approx 100.