Macbook 13 too slow?

[tednunesrunning]

I'm really confused. I currently record multitrack sessions on an imac, 2.4ghz, 2g 800MHz. It's the base model before the recent updates. My good friend used to use a mac pro, that was a 1.5 ghz 4g ram, and he ran full blown protools. Recorded at 196k.

What I'm confused about is why would anyone say that the 13" macbook pro would only be good for surfing the web and email? I understand that the i5, i7 processors are "better" but it I just can't see the 13 as "slow" as the comments I'm reading.

I'm looking into purchasing a MBP and I'm trying to justify the extra 700 bucks on an already expensive purchase. What did everyone record on, or do Video editing on before the ix chips?

I'd just like some input on reasons behind the discussions and not just a "well if your only going to be surfing the web than the 13 will be fine."

I plan on doing some recording with mine and my "slow" Imac works great. never thought it was slow.

 

[Corndog5595]

I'm really confused. I currently record multitrack sessions on an imac, 2.4ghz, 2g 800MHz. It's the base model before the recent updates. My good friend used to use a mac pro, that was a 1.5 ghz 4g ram, and he ran full blown protools. Recorded at 196k.

What I'm confused about is why would anyone say that the 13" macbook pro would only be good for surfing the web and email? I understand that the i5, i7 processors are "better" but it I just can't see the 13 as "slow" as the comments I'm reading.

I'm looking into purchasing a MBP and I'm trying to justify the extra 700 bucks on an already expensive purchase. What did everyone record on, or do Video editing on before the ix chips?

I'd just like some input on reasons behind the discussions and not just a "well if your only going to be surfing the web than the 13 will be fine."

I plan on doing some recording with mine and my "slow" Imac works great. never thought it was slow.

People are always swayed into thinking anything but the best will be unusable. The i5 will have slightly increased speeds under load (this could greatly benefit you for your uses) but you shouldn’t have any issue with a C2D.

 

[Loptimist]

2010 mbp 13" has good performance/dollar ratio (not the best), whereas 15"/17" are overly expensive for the performance.

13" mbp with 320m is not slow at all; the mbp with 9400m is slow for gaming though.

 

[Corndog5595]

the 9400m is last years model’s.

 

[ouimetnick]

I'm really confused. I currently record multitrack sessions on an imac, 2.4ghz, 2g 800MHz. It's the base model before the recent updates. My good friend used to use a mac pro, that was a 1.5 ghz 4g ram, and he ran full blown protools. Recorded at 196k.

What I'm confused about is why would anyone say that the 13" macbook pro would only be good for surfing the web and email? I understand that the i5, i7 processors are "better" but it I just can't see the 13 as "slow" as the comments I'm reading.

I'm looking into purchasing a MBP and I'm trying to justify the extra 700 bucks on an already expensive purchase. What did everyone record on, or do Video editing on before the ix chips?

I'd just like some input on reasons behind the discussions and not just a "well if your only going to be surfing the web than the 13 will be fine."

I plan on doing some recording with mine and my "slow" Imac works great. never thought it was slow.

First off, the iMac models that came before the recent iMac updates had a processor of 3.06 GHz in the base model. And the ones before that had a 2.66 GHz CPU in the base model. Also, the Mac Pro NEVER had a CPU clocked at 1.5 GHz. Even the Power Mac G5 (looks like a Mac Pro, but uses IBM's Power PC chips) had a base CPU of 1.8 GHz.

Your post is flawed.

 

[Loptimist]

First off, the iMac models that came before the recent iMac updates had a processor of 3.06 GHz in the base model. And the ones before that had a 2.66 GHz CPU in the base model. Also, the Mac Pro NEVER had a CPU clocked at 1.5 GHz. Even the Power Mac G5 (looks like a Mac Pro, but uses IBM's Power PC chips) had a base CPU of 1.8 GHz.

Your post is flawed.

picky. that is not the point of this thread.

 

[ouimetnick]

I'm really confused. I currently record multitrack sessions on an imac, 2.4ghz, 2g 800MHz. It's the base model before the recent updates. My good friend used to use a mac pro, that was a 1.5 ghz 4g ram, and he ran full blown protools. Recorded at 196k.

What I'm confused about is why would anyone say that the 13" macbook pro would only be good for surfing the web and email? I understand that the i5, i7 processors are "better" but it I just can't see the 13 as "slow" as the comments I'm reading.

I'm looking into purchasing a MBP and I'm trying to justify the extra 700 bucks on an already expensive purchase. What did everyone record on, or do Video editing on before the ix chips?

I'd just like some input on reasons behind the discussions and not just a "well if your only going to be surfing the web than the 13 will be fine."

I plan on doing some recording with mine and my "slow" Imac works great. never thought it was slow.

Getting on the point. The new MBP 13" 2.4 GHz model will be slightly faster than your iMac. The MBP has faster graphics, more RAM, and the same 2.4 GHz clocked CPU... However, even though the CPU is still a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo, the chipset is 1066 MHz instead of the 800 MHz chipset you have. So the CPU, RAM, graphics can communicate with each other faster with the 1066 MHz FSB speed instead of the slower 800 MHz speed.

However, the MBP 13" 2.4 GHz model will not be dramatically faster than your current iMac, but if you are happy with the speed and performance of your iMac, you will be happy with the base 13" MBP.

 

[tednunesrunning]

I guess it wasn't a Mac Pro... it was a G4 with a 1ghz processor.

The Price, It's almost double your money for a slight performance boost. I'm surprised most people don't just buy the base models. If you figure that in 6 months to a year the $1100 MBP will have the same specs as the 1800 MBP. just a smaller screen. It's as if you loose about 800 bucks in a less than a year where as you could still get 900 for your base MBP in a years time. I have a buddy who bought the 17 MBP at around $2500, maybe not "fully loaded" but close to it. It's crazy to think that in around 5 years time it's only worth 500 bucks. Where as, the 1000 MBP is worth 500 in 5 years time. Just food for thought.

I also have the opportunity to purchase the older 15in 2.5x ghz 4g ram, C2D for 1399. But i think the battery life, graphics, and overall performance might actually be a bit slower than the updated 13 in MBP. Any thoughts on that?

I'm leaning towards the 13 in... I'd like to take advantage of my school pricing, Free Ipod touch, and free printer(no tax on printer).

 

[Loptimist]

I also have the opportunity to purchase the older 15in 2.5x ghz 4g ram, C2D for 1399. But i think the battery life, graphics, and overall performance might actually be a bit slower than the updated 13 in MBP. Any thoughts on that?

current base 13inch is better than previous base 15inch model.

 

[ouimetnick]

I guess it wasn't a Mac Pro... it was a G4 with a 1ghz processor.

The Price, It's almost double your money for a slight performance boost. I'm surprised most people don't just buy the base models. If you figure that in 6 months to a year the $1100 MBP will have the same specs as the 1800 MBP. just a smaller screen. It's as if you loose about 800 bucks in a less than a year where as you could still get 900 for your base MBP in a years time. I have a buddy who bought the 17 MBP at around $2500, maybe not "fully loaded" but close to it. It's crazy to think that in around 5 years time it's only worth 500 bucks. Where as, the 1000 MBP is worth 500 in 5 years time. Just food for thought.

I also have the opportunity to purchase the older 15in 2.5x ghz 4g ram, C2D for 1399. But i think the battery life, graphics, and overall performance might actually be a bit slower than the updated 13 in MBP. Any thoughts on that?

I'm leaning towards the 13 in... I'd like to take advantage of my school pricing, Free Ipod touch, and free printer(no tax on printer).

Theres a HUGE difference between the PowerMac G4 and a Mac Pro.

 

[EndlessMac]

What I'm confused about is why would anyone say that the 13" macbook pro would only be good for surfing the web and email?

Well anyone who says that clearly hasn't used one. A lot of that comes from a person's perception on performance. You see this all the time when it comes to electronic devices. When a new one comes out suddenly last year's model is not longer good enough for anything but using it as a paper weight.

Just look at cameras. People keep thinking they need a 57 or more megapixel camera when most users only need something like a 6 megapixel camera. Most consumers don't truthfully know how much performance they need from their devices so they tend to overbuy and buy more than they need.

Surfing the web and emailing can be done on a 5+ year old computer. I know because I still have one around and use it for that and more. If an old computer can do that then a newer 13" MBP can do so much more.

Remember that a lot of forums have enthusiasts so for those people nothing but the best is good enough. Anything but the best is considered inadequate for those people. What I find funny is that usually those enthusiasts don't use their devices to their full potential either so they really didn't need it. Advice is free so just remember you get what you pay for. I've just learned to ignore statements like that.

As to your purchase question, I don't think you will notice a dramatic performance difference than what you have now. The new 13" MBP and your iMac specs are too close to together for you to see much of a speed difference. If you need the portability then I see the benefit in getting it.

 

[alust2013]

current base 13inch is better than previous base 15inch model.

Ah, that isn't quite true. When the integrated graphics are in use, yes, but the 9600m (discrete graphics in the previous 15) is considerably better than the 320m.

As for OP, the C2D really isn't slow at all. It's still a reasonably fast processor, especially for a notebook, you just need slightly more patience with it than the i5, when you are doing very heavy tasks. One thing to remember is that the processor is not the bottleneck of any computer. That is either the hard drive (in most cases) or the RAM (in the case of our 5-year-old dell with 1GB and about a gig and a half worth of crap that comes up at login - you can see where the problem is there)

 

[tednunesrunning]

I'm mostly looking for something portable... I'd get a standard macbook if it came with firewire. I could record fine on the current macbook.

My main point is that I'm not using this as a computer for recording as much as a mobile device. I figure if I'm going to get a laptop then I might as well get something that i can record with as well. With school starting back up again, and the deals happening right now, do I really need to wait for i3 13in MBP?

But I found a sweet deal on Logic 2.0 for only $149, so I'd like to put that on my lap top as well as my Imac.

Another thing about my buddy, he bought his $2500 17 in MBP BEFORE the update. He "only" has the C2D. How much money did he loss in that deal? The thing is, he's happy as ever and his machine is screaming. Most of us come from 500ghz processors and were able to do so much with it. Technology is moving so fast that anything over 2g's is screaming.

thanks for the input guys. I really do like to read all the info.

 

[tednunesrunning]

Ah, that isn't quite true. When the integrated graphics are in use, yes, but the 9600m (discrete graphics in the previous 15) is considerably better than the 320m.

As for OP, the C2D really isn't slow at all. It's still a reasonably fast processor, especially for a notebook, you just need slightly more patience with it than the i5, when you are doing very heavy tasks. One thing to remember is that the processor is not the bottleneck of any computer. That is either the hard drive (in most cases) or the RAM (in the case of our 5-year-old dell with 1GB and about a gig and a half worth of crap that comes up at login - you can see where the problem is there)

So the better deal would be the current 13in macbook? I like the smaller machine. I don't feel like I'm missing anything on the 13 ..

 

[Corndog5595]

Ah, that isn't quite true. When the integrated graphics are in use, yes, but the 9600m (discrete graphics in the previous 15) is considerably better than the 320m.

As for OP, the C2D really isn't slow at all. It's still a reasonably fast processor, especially for a notebook, you just need slightly more patience with it than the i5, when you are doing very heavy tasks. One thing to remember is that the processor is not the bottleneck of any computer. That is either the hard drive (in most cases) or the RAM (in the case of our 5-year-old dell with 1GB and about a gig and a half worth of crap that comes up at login - you can see where the problem is there)

Last years base 15” had only one GPU; the 9400m.

 

[tednunesrunning]

thats the 15 in

 

[Loptimist]

Ah, that isn't quite true. When the integrated graphics are in use, yes, but the 9600m (discrete graphics in the previous 15) is considerably better than the 320m.

As for OP, the C2D really isn't slow at all. It's still a reasonably fast processor, especially for a notebook, you just need slightly more patience with it than the i5, when you are doing very heavy tasks. One thing to remember is that the processor is not the bottleneck of any computer. That is either the hard drive (in most cases) or the RAM (in the case of our 5-year-old dell with 1GB and about a gig and a half worth of crap that comes up at login - you can see where the problem is there)

do some research before you disagree.

previous base 15inch had only 9400m, unlike current or first unibody generation.