Looking to upgrade 2011 MBP

[ggoerl]

Hey guys, I have a fully upgraded 2011 13" i7 2.8 16gb ram, ssd + 2nd hdd in place of disk drive. I'm looking to see if there's anything better out there (silly question, as there is) but my MBP has issues handling 4k, it's choppy/stuttery and it's starting to show it's age.

I was looking at everymac geekbench scores for my year and am amazed how a slightly slower machine like the 17" has better a better score than my 13", does this have anything to do with 1gb nvidia gpu? Links below:

https://everymac.com/systems/apple/...5-17-late-2011-unibody-thunderbolt-specs.html

https://everymac.com/systems/apple/...-13-early-2011-unibody-thunderbolt-specs.html

Additionally, I was looking at either a 15" 2012 or 2013

https://everymac.com/systems/apple/...-i7-2.6-15-mid-2012-retina-display-specs.html

https://everymac.com/systems/apple/...7-2.7-15-early-2013-retina-display-specs.html

If I had to choose between the two, which one of the two is better? (the 2013 seems to barely squeeze past the 2012) or is there a better option?

 

[robvas]

Early 2013 and2012 Retina machines have a very slow integrated GPU, I would avoid them. HD4000 vs Iris 5100 in the late 2013.

 

[Poki]

The 17" is quad core, the 13" is dual core, that's why the former is faster.

The integrated GPU is not really important, both 15" models you're looking at feature the same dedicated GPU. Not a lot of difference with these models. Basically, get the one that's cheaper.

 

[Fishrrman]

OP wrote:
"my MBP has issues handling 4k, it's choppy/stuttery and it's starting to show it's age."

If you REALLY want something capable of handling 4k with ease, then wait for the 2018 MacBook Pros. They will handle DRM-encoded material far better than it's handled now.

I wouldn't even consider anything older than the 2015 design.

 

[ggoerl]

The 17" is quad core, the 13" is dual core, that's why the former is faster.

The integrated GPU is not really important, both 15" models you're looking at feature the same dedicated GPU. Not a lot of difference with these models. Basically, get the one that's cheaper.

Ahh I totally missed that part.

OP wrote:
"my MBP has issues handling 4k, it's choppy/stuttery and it's starting to show it's age."

If you REALLY want something capable of handling 4k with ease, then wait for the 2018 MacBook Pros. They will handle DRM-encoded material far better than it's handled now.

I wouldn't even consider anything older than the 2015 design.

I would, but I'm not a fan of the new macbooks, the touch bar is a gimmicky, let alone I'd rather buy a much cheaper, used macbook rather than pay the overlords of apple for their overpriced outdated hardware.

 

[Brammy]

If you are looking at buying, unless it is a 13", stay away from anything in 2011. The dGPUs in the 15 and 17" laptops are ticking time bombs.

If you don't like the new MacBooks, I'd go for a 15" 2015. That will last you quite a bit, and you can even get one through Apple's refurbished plans, I think.

 

[ZapNZs]

There is not a very big difference between the 15-inch 2012 retina and early 2013 15-inch retina. The late 2013 retina introduced a new CPU with a reasonably significant jump over the previous CPU, as well as the superior (and less problematic) Nvidia 750M dGPU. It also transitioned the SSD from SATA to PCIe. IMO if you are searching for a MBP from that era, the late 2013 or 2014 is are better overall systems (however, the 750M GPU is extremely obsolete.)

Are you working with a lot of 4k material?

If a desktop isn't a possibility, the 2015 15-inch MBP with a dGPU is probably the best bet if you do not like the current version. However, the current version has a pretty significant advantage over the 2015 in regards to some 4k usage.