Mid-2009 Macbook Pro 13" vs. Mid-2010 Macbook Pro 13"

[SPNarwhal]

Hey guys, I'm just curious as to if there's really anything much better about the Mid 2010 Macbook Pro 13" compared opposed to the Mid 2009 Macbook Pro 13"?

My friend is looking for a laptop and she has a local deal for 650 for a 2009 model, 2.26 GHZ Core2Duo with 2gb of RAM and 160gb harddrive.
I know that the 2010 model is 2.4ghz and comes stock with 4gb of ram, but if she upgrades the ram in the 2009 model, what really is the difference between that and the 2010?

Basically what I'm asking is, she can get a 2010 model for 700, or this 2009 model for 650 + a stand.

Is there any reason she should get the 2010 instead of the 2009? Both come with original box and all manuals and such, but the 2009 one comes with a stand for the Macbook and a router (but the router really isn't important)

After upgrading the ram to the same 4gb the 2010 has, is there really any noticable difference?
Aside harddrive size, I know that, but that's not extremely important here and is always upgradable.

Thanks!

 

[SPNarwhal]

Also, is the screen better on one of the two?
I'm assuming that the 2009 Macbook Pro 13" isn't washed out like the Aluminum Macbook?

 

[DWBurke811]

The 2010 outputs audio through the mini display port; if you're planning on hooking it up to a TV via HDMI it's a nice feature. Other than that I can't really think of anything major, but IMO the 2010 is a better deal; $50 more for the RAM, processor, and HD seems worth it to me

 

[SPNarwhal]

Well it comes with a 50 dollar arc stand, so I guess that will hold it if wanted for an external display.

Also, it comes with a Wireless N router all for 650.

The 700 is only the 2010 laptop itself, but I also think that should be the focal point of the purchase anyway, not the accessories.

However we can get 4gb of RAM for about 20 dollars locally, so it would be 670 to have a 2009 model with 4gb of ram, with accessories. Doesn't seem that too far off, but I'm thinking the things that aren't upgradable will come back to haunt later on. I know that the battery in the 2010 is a bit bigger than the 2009 also.

Also, side question, are both of these good/great deals? Low priced, mid priced? I feel like they're how much they should be going for, but I've seen a lot of local deals with people trying to sell their Core2Duo models for 900+ and are firm firm firm on pricing, I can't see that happening though.

 

[xlii]

I own the 2009 13" MBP. Like it a lot. But... if I had the choice you have... I would buy the 2010 13" MBP. I think the 2010 comes with a better GPU, and I think it's battery was rated as lasting longer than the 2009 model.

 

[SPNarwhal]

Yeah, and truthfully I don't even know if she would be using the accessories.
To me the 2009 one sounds like a decent deal since I would love to have a stand, but this isn't for me and I think ultimately she would be better off with the 2010. She didn't ask me to find her accessories, just to find her a laptop.

I think I'll probably go with the 2010.

Thanks guys.

 

[Prodo123]

Hey guys, I'm just curious as to if there's really anything much better about the Mid 2010 Macbook Pro 13" compared opposed to the Mid 2009 Macbook Pro 13"?

My friend is looking for a laptop and she has a local deal for 650 for a 2009 model, 2.26 GHZ Core2Duo with 2gb of RAM and 160gb harddrive.
I know that the 2010 model is 2.4ghz and comes stock with 4gb of ram, but if she upgrades the ram in the 2009 model, what really is the difference between that and the 2010?

Basically what I'm asking is, she can get a 2010 model for 700, or this 2009 model for 650 + a stand.

Is there any reason she should get the 2010 instead of the 2009? Both come with original box and all manuals and such, but the 2009 one comes with a stand for the Macbook and a router (but the router really isn't important)

After upgrading the ram to the same 4gb the 2010 has, is there really any noticable difference?
Aside harddrive size, I know that, but that's not extremely important here and is always upgradable.

Thanks!

The newer the better.
The only thing you should be worried about is graphics and the CPU. The 2010 has the Nvidia 320M, which is subpar at best.
CPU performance will be much better on the 2010.
For IGP performance, read this: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/896637/

Also, note that the 2010 uses DDR3 and 2009 uses DDR2.

The rest can be user swapped. If you want more RAM, then stick more RAM in. If you want a bigger hard drive, replace it. They are not a big deal.

Performance wise, the 2010 will be a huge leap from the 2009.

 

[NZed]

Better GPU and CPU and Ram and HDD is worth the $50

Note: i dont own this pic. soz to the people who own this.

 

[DWBurke811]

My MacBook has a 320M, and it has no problem playing 1080p .mkv files that are 12+ GB on my TV via HDMI; so to me it does it's job pretty well. I'm sure it would suck at playing games, but since it's not a gaming machine and I mainly game on my N64(currently researching what's the best Wii to get to homebrew, but what I really want is to get my "VCR NES" and SNES working, both are back at "home" so I don't know what that entails yet. Something about having my throwback consoles on my LED backlit LCD sounds BAMF lol) I really don't care.

Sorry for the little tangent, the past couple days I've been doing a lot of Wii-search.