Keep 13 inch 2009, or sell and get 2011 13 inch?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by freeman727, Apr 4, 2011.

  1. freeman727 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    #1
    What to do? I can get a new one for $1086 and could probably sell the old one for $800. I have no problems with the 2009 MBP but could use a speed bump. Will day to day use be noticeable? There is no UI differences besides Thunderbolt, right?
     
  2. Alaerian Guest

    Alaerian

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Location:
    A barstool, Innis & Gunn in hand
    #2
    What are you doing that requires you to have an increase in speed? Is it actually a verifiable need, or simply a want?
     
  3. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #3
    There would be no difference in normal use, so it would be basically a bust. If you want apps, etc. to load faster, you may want to look at getting a SSD instead.
     
  4. freeman727 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    #4
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

    Want, I just saw a good deal. I will probably wait till 2012.
     
  5. LSUtigers03 macrumors 68020

    LSUtigers03

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    #5
    I have a 2007 white macbook. If mine didn't have something spill on it Saturday I would have waited until the next refresh. Around 2 - 3 months before the latest refresh I wanted to upgrade but then I decided not to because I would be spending money for a want not a need. I'll be going to Best Buy today and getting a new 13" but because I have to not simply because I want to. I would hold out and wait for the next refresh.
     
  6. Ieo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    #6
    I upgraded from a base 2009 13" (2.26 C2D + 9400m) to the 2011 base 13" (2.3 i5 + HD 3000) for, believe it or not, more graphics power.

    While everyone is still bitching and moaning about the 320m vs the HD 3000, there's no denying that the HD 3000 is better than the 9400m, and I only needed just a little more oomph to drive steam games on a large external monitor at 1080p. That's all I wanted, and I figured I might as well do it sooner rather than later to get as much resale out of the 2009 as possible.

    I scavenged the upgraded HDD & memory out of the 2009, sold it in stock condition w/some cosmetic damage on ebay for $765, sold the 4gb of 1066mhz memory to a buddy for $50 and bought 8gb of 1333mhz for $85, used my student discount to save $100 on a base 2011, used my discover card to save $60-ish in cashback bonus, and in the end paid $310-ish to upgrade to a 2 year newer model with twice as much ram and considerably better specs all around.

    Try and do that with a PC, lol.

    I say if you need just a little more graphics power or more CPU power (chances are you don't if you're in the market for a 13"), go ahead. If you're expecting a massive increase in CPU power and you're going to be playing all the latest games, you're barking up the wrong tree.

    Also, the battery life in the 2011 is noticeably improved over the 2009. NO, it's not improved over the 2010, but it's better than the 2009.
     
  7. ScholarsInk macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    #7
    Erm I can run games on the baseline 2009 13" that the HD3000 model cannot even launch.

    EDIT: I should add that I mean original version games, not Cider ports.
     
  8. Weaselboy Moderator

    Weaselboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Location:
    California
    #8
    If you just have the burn for a new machine and can afford the $286 bones, I would do it. You have a new machine under warranty and the latest technology.
     
  9. DustinT macrumors 68000

    DustinT

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    #9
    I'm going to disagree with pretty much everyone in this thread. This is a major difference in speed with the 2011's versus the 2010's. How much larger will the increase be between the 09's and the 11's?

    Considering that you'd be getting a new battery that will last longer, a new system that is less likely to fail, a new warranty, screen, etc... how could you say this is a bad deal?

    Do it man, you'll be glad you did.
     
  10. Ieo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    #10
    Why do people always consider windows gaming on a mac the same as OSX gaming on a mac? There are lots of different variables, drivers being a big one.

    It's been shown in multiple tests by multiple people that the HD3000 will actually run games better in many/most cases in OSX than windows. When I (tried) to play L4D2 on the 9400m machine, it was just terrible. With the HD3000, it's more than playable, if not good. Same story with HL2, L4D1, Portal, etc. Starcraft 2 played OK with the 9400m on all low and much better with the HD3000 even on mostly medium with some low settings.

    If I wanted to game in windows I would buy a windows machine. I just want to play a quick game in steam while I wait in the library between afternoon classes.
     
  11. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #11
    Speed increase in what? Sure if you're using a lot of processing power, there's a good increase, but not a perceived increase in speed for normal daily use. That's limited by the HDD, which tends to be the bottleneck for the majority of users.
     
  12. ScholarsInk macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    #12
    Because some of us see no point in playing ports when the original is so near.

    And I've played all of the games you mention (except for SC2) at relatively high settings without problems on the 9400m.

    The HD3000 cannot run Mass Effect 2 at anything but low (while I run it on med-high on my 9400m), cannot launch GTA IV (which, I admit, is badly optimised, but at least playable on 9400m) at all and so on.
     

Share This Page