macbook 17" 2011 vs 15" 2012

650m is around 30-40% faster than 6770m. (On the CPU side, the performance increase is very small, around 5-10% faster at same clock speed.)

Since you mentioned HDMI it's safe to assume you're looking at 15" retina model.

The screen on retina model is far better but having a native 17" 1920x1200 is nice though.

 

Go for the screen real estate. You have plenty of chances to buy a 15" later.

 

hmm i'm guessing not retina because of the price.

i'd get the 17inch, simply because of the screen and it being phased out.

i've always liked larger screens.

but the 15inch is also good, probably more reliable since it has a new internal design.

 

2012 15" for a few reasons.

1. USB3.0
2. Faster CPU
3. Faster GPUs (plural)
4. SATA III in both Main HDD and Optibay ports.
5. (Probably) still under warranty and/or AppleCare eligable

To me, the USB3.0 is SIGNIFICANT enough to justify the 2012 over the 2011, especially considering how pricey TB is and how useless TB is without an SSD.

 

Only the Retina MacBook Pro has a built-in HDMI port. You would need to use a DisplayPort->HDMI adapter for any "classic" MBP you buy, 15- or 17-inch. I do this with my MBP to connect it to my living room TV. Works just fine via a cheap $8 adapter I bought in the clearance bin at MicroCenter.

USB 3.0 can be added to the 17-inch MBP via the ExpressCard slot.

 

More money spent, more accessories, more bulk, and it's not native. To me, not worth it.

 

17