MacBook 2017 vs. MacBook Pro 2010 17"

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by hajime, Jul 30, 2017.

  1. hajime macrumors 601

    Jul 23, 2007
    Hello, how is the maxed MacBook 2017 compared with the maxed MacBook Pro 2010 17" with SSD? The former uses Intel HD 615 while the latter uses Nvidia GeForce GT330M.
  2. Elwe macrumors regular

    Dec 30, 2006
    Are you just asking about relative performance differences? If so, what kind of usage or applications do you use?

    Because while there are indeed some performance differences (caused by a number of things), there are other experiential diffidences, too. The new machine is silent. It is far lighter. It is not internally upgradeadable, and the port selection is quite a bit more limited. They are really quite different, though they are both still laptops.
  3. lowkey macrumors 6502

    Jul 16, 2002
    the 12" MacBook is smaller and lighter!
  4. hajime thread starter macrumors 601

    Jul 23, 2007

    Yes. Relative performance please.

    Adobe Masters Collection CS 5 or 6 (Illustrator, Photoshop, Premiere), Words, Excel, PowerPoint, Keynotes, Matlab/Simulink, SolidWorks.
  5. aakshey macrumors 6502a


    Jun 13, 2016
    Try using GeekBench’s website to figure it out.
  6. hajime thread starter macrumors 601

    Jul 23, 2007
    I went to Apple Store. A staff reminded me that if I connect the laptop to a monitor, then there will be no charging. She then recommended me to get the MacBook Pro 13" for the same price. When I asked her if it has a GPU. She asked me what GPU is and searched the web.
  7. Buerkletucson macrumors 6502


    Sep 12, 2015
    There are numerous adapters that will allow HDMI port and charge port simultaneously that are relatively cheap.
    Not a big deal really.....

    The Macbook is all about portability and not lugging around a larger or heavier machine.
    The Macbook and Macbook Pro have two different audiences IMHO.
  8. c0ppo macrumors 65816


    Feb 11, 2013
    I have MB 2016, M5. It's connected to my Dell U2515H all the time. And it's charging as well.
  9. Elwe macrumors regular

    Dec 30, 2006
    Without diving too deeply into I/O specifics, not all SSDs (including the particular interface technology and protocols they use) are created equally. Your 2010 laptop is limited to SATA II speeds, which means if you have a modern SATA SSD, you are not likely getting anywhere near the possible performance from it now. Not only is your maximum throughput less than the modern PCIE/NVME capabilities, but perhaps more importantly to you is that the random reads/writes are much master. Sorry if I am throwing too many acronyms and concepts at you, but in many of these applications--and in general OS usage--you will see less lag, fewer "bouncy balls", etc. If you have big Excel documents, you will notice this routinely. The same for many-layered Photosop documents. It is hard to give definitive comparison for relatively short-running things, but I use a very similar machine for some edge work and it can be 1/4 or 1/5 the time to "respond" to basic changes and inputs. Copying +1GB files back and forth is not quite that fast, but still faster than your current machine.

    Something else to think about. The current processor (I am referring to both the CPU area and the GPU area in the processor for the current machine) is vastly better at some things because of built-in hardware that speeds up certain functions. You will notice this on certain UI affects in general usage, when you are watching or encoding/exporting (at least in Final Cut, though I notice you use Premier*)1080p video or up, and if you have encrypted your storage.

    If your budget allows for it, just realize you could get even greater leaps in performance by moving to a Macbook Pro 15" since you are already comfortable with the 17" form factor. That thing is a beast. Or even a current 13". But the 12" should be better than your 17" in almost every performance category.

    *Premiere . . . so, one of the application suites that even now is not GPU optimized, at least on the modern Apple system side, is Premiere. It is astounding how much faster Final Cut is for certain things. Given the differences in processor lines over the seven years, and given that you had a dual core processor of that time, I still think you will see faster speeds in Premiere. But they will not be as dramatic as in some other things.

Share This Page