Old 13" or New 13"?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by GrainOfNaCl, Feb 27, 2011.

  1. GrainOfNaCl macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Location:
    The Wild Blue Yonder
    #1
    First of all, I am sorry for creating another should I/shouldn't I thread :p
    I do most of my work as a student on a desktop, but the desktop is a 2004 Dell Dimension 4700/Intel Pentium 4 computer. Needless to say it's time for an upgrade. I do the usual email/internet/document use, but I also do amateur photography, which entails photoshop/aperture. I'm going for a laptop because that what will ultimately be more productive for me personally. About three months ago I stared comparing Mac/PC and decided to go with a Mac because it tends to be more durable and holds its value better, and I like the OS better. I did my homework and learned that a refresh or spec bump would be coming around, so I decided to hold off on pulling the trigger. Now that the MBpros are updated, it seems that a lot of people are saying to stick with the old C2D version, and then wait for the next one.

    So here's my question. Should I buy the latest base 13" (upgrade at home), or buy the late 2010 version cheap, and then upgrade to a current MBpro in a year or two?
     
  2. callmewheel macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Location:
    California
    #2
    I'm in the same boat (thank for creating this thread so I don't need to).

    I would be all over the new 13" macbook pro if it had a 1440x900 screen but it doesn't. The macbook air is too expensive, i'd rather put that money into specs that dimensions.

    Getting the 2010 mbp is slight more tempting than the new 2011 because while all these benchmarks are saying how amazing the new sandy bridge processors are they ignore the 13 inch. The 2.4GHz C2D seems to be on par with the 2.3Ghz i5 which seems only slightly faster than the 2.66Ghz. Most of the "twice as fast" claims seem to deal with the fact there's twice as many cores in the 15" and 17" model.
     
  3. thinkinblue613 macrumors 6502

    thinkinblue613

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #3
    Not true.

    The 13" i5 MBP scored a 5900 on Geekbench. The previous model was around 3300. That's almost doubled in performance capability. That score will also get higher with a memory upgrade. Here's a link to the 2010 and 2011 Macbook Pros.

    Saying the new ones aren't as good as the older ones is false. It is an upgrade no matter which way you look at it.

    Originally, I was fine with purchasing the 2010 MBP. But since I got it so close to the refresh, I figured why the heck not spend the same amount of cash for double the performance. People are saying, "oh the GPU sucks... and they didn't even upgrade the screen!" I understand that, really do. However, I have an Xbox 360 for games and external monitors for the bigger screen resolution. If you want better screen resolution go with the 15". I prefer the 13 due to being more portable and the power it has under the hood.

    It's my money and I feel like spending it on the newer one will benefit me more in the long run.
     
  4. GrainOfNaCl thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Location:
    The Wild Blue Yonder
    #5
    Frankly I think I'm leaning towards the '10, it's cheaper, and it will be a WHOLE lot better than what I have already. I really just want to make sure I'm not doing something stupid ;) Is the spec bump really worth it to spend the extra cash now? If not, I would rather spend the big bucks to get something more substantial later on...
     
  5. C1raider macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    #6
    With an education discount then the 2011 mbp is the way to go
     
  6. V4705 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    #7
    between the 2010 mbp and 2011 mbp, you can't go wrong, none of them has bad sides.

    you just need to choose:
    better battery life & better price
    vs.
    better processing performance

    whatever you need.
     
  7. pricej636 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Location:
    Colorado
    #8
    The difference between the core2duo that 2010 has and the Sandy Bridge the 2011 has is amazing. If you can afford the 2011 it is definitely the better choice. Honestly if you are looking at the 2010 Pro and cost is a concern, you might look for a 2010 white macbook. They can be had for around 500.
     
  8. GrainOfNaCl thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Location:
    The Wild Blue Yonder
    #9
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

    Cost isn't really a big issue for me, but I don't like to waste money either ;)
     
  9. mikeo007 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    #10
    If you plan on upgrading in a couple of years anyway, then get the 2010. Put the money you saved in the bank and put it towards a new computer down the road.
     
  10. shyam09 macrumors 68000

    shyam09

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    #11
    i have the 2010 model [despite knowing that a update was imminent]
    i love it..

    sure it has it's cons, but when you think about it you wont be using the laptop for heavy stuff. the C2D [though old] is perfectly suitable..
    btw im a student too :)
     
  11. Thekolton macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    #12
    not true for battery life my 2010 mbp with i7 lasts 3-5 hours and so apple must have done some new testing because its actually an improvement on the new mbp if apples battery life testing is accurate
     
  12. vincenz macrumors 601

    vincenz

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    #13
    This is a rhetorical question right? Go for the new, you're better off in the long run.
     
  13. vraev macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    #14
    I was in the same boat. Infact when I got my MBP 2011 13" yest...I first asked the guy at apple if he had the older 13". It would be 100$ cheaper. However...depends on what u want o use it for. Initially I was wary becos of the crappy GPU, but decided that I wouldn't want to be doing gaming on it anyways (I have a asus G73 that screams for gaming). ALso, the Nvidia 320M may not be too far ahead with the Intel 3000 HD. Next, in uni, I use a lot of profressional research software like flowjo. This is more CPU intensive than GPU heavy. Hence, its the i5 which seems to be faster than the Core2duo in many cases...+ its more efficient. So I got the new one. I must say though.. I hate the resolution and am trying to tinker the fonts to smaller levels. I am used to a 1920 x 1080 screen on my last two laptops from the past 10 years. (Dell I9300 and current Asus G73JH). The moment they upgrade the 13" screen res, I am selling this sucker for the upgrade.
     
  14. ajarnfalang, Feb 27, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2011

    ajarnfalang macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    #15

    Macbook Pros are way too overpriced. A Core i5 without a video card (just the Intel HD that the processor has) for $1,200?.

    Not to mention Photoshop runs off the GPU. I would go crazy trying to run CS5 in a little mac with no video card that cost me $1,200!

    Apple is taking a giant piss.

    Get a Thinkpad.

    e420s. Best keyboard of any laptop. Soft rubberized surface so you don't cut your wrists when you type.

    You'll probably save like $500 and It has a dedicated video card.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Miss Terri macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2010
    Location:
    US East Coast
    #16
    If I were comparing a new 2010 13" MBP (presuming you can still buy them new?) vs. a new 2011 13" MBP, well, I think the cost might be so close I'd want to go 2011.

    BUT, the refurbished 2010 13" MBP's are like $929 now, and from what I understand they are generally just like new (and if you get one you don't like - has scratches or something - you can send it back for another one). The only thing that I think is different is it comes in more of a plain box, but otherwise, warranty, Apple Care eligibility, all is the same.

    That would give you around a $300 savings, if you include tax. That's a nice chunk to save towards the NEXT upgrade, which might be more tempting. Or it's free Apple Care. Or an SSD. Or 4 gigs of RAM plus $200 in the bank.

    If you would be using all the "extra" power of the 2011, then obviously go for that one. OTOH, if the 2010 is plenty fast for what you will be doing with it, then maybe pocket the $300. If prices stay around the same, that's 1/4 of your next MBP 13" :D

    If you did buy the refurbished 2010, and tried it out, and found it lacking, you still have the 14-day return period. And the 2011s aren't going anywhere.

    Miss Terri
     
  16. shyam09 macrumors 68000

    shyam09

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    #17
    well said.. i agree with what Miss Terri has said. +1
     
  17. jmdMac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2010
    Location:
    Alaska
    #18
    Eww.

    Go with the 2010, you will be VERY happy with it I'm sure! It will do all you need and more, plus you can get good deals on them!
     
  18. cathyy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    #19
    Based on every single 13" Whitebook and Macbook Pro ever released, the trend seems to be that the specs always suck. This may change eventually, but from what we've seen of every 13" MBP so far, they have never had anything more than a middle-range CPU and a crappy graphics card.

    I really cannot imagine recommending anyone to get a 2010 MBP. I mean it's still using the same Core 2 Duo CPUs as the 13" Macbooks in 2007. Yes, I know there have been minor updates to the architecture, but they are just minor updates and the architecture is still largely the same as 2007. You're essentially buying 4 year old technology.

    CPU-wise, there won't really be any major leaps within the next 2 years. Sandy Bridge is one of the biggest leaps for mobile CPUs and it just happened. Other than that, there isn't even any gurantee that there'll be any major updates for the 13" Macbook Pro within the next 2 years. I mean if Apple decided to stick with the Core 2 Duo CPUs for 13" Macs for 4 whole years, who's to say that they won't pull that again with the Sandy Bridge CPUs? The only thing you could actually hope for in 2 years is a better graphics card. It'll probably happen, but based on the history of 13" Macs, they'll get some ****** low-end integrated chip.
     
  19. limo79 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    #20
  20. h00ligan macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    A hot desert
    #21
    Coulnd't agree more.. to the point where I may jump back to the darkside to get a 13" laptop with a decent res.. apple screwed that one up imo.
     
  21. Evil Spoonman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Location:
    California
    #22
    Buy the 2011, without question. I'd go with the premium 2011 with the i7 if I was you, but either one will do okay. Unless you plan to do serious high-res Photoshop work (especially with layers), in which case maybe you should reconsider. Not the 2010 either, you'd want a more gutsy laptop in general.

    Negative. Battery life is the same. Performance of the 2011 is much better.

    We've always known Macs command a price premium, this isn't news to anybody.

    Actually, that is an option in CS5, not a requirement. It is only beneficial in some scenarios, and actually the SB IGP does pretty decently. I wouldn't start doing massive layer compositing with it, but for the run of the mill photo editing and web design stuff it is fine.

    See you don't actually know that, because the product doesn't exist yet. Lenova hasn't made the specs public yet, and they aren't releasing them until April. Sooo… you pretty much just blew your whole argument there.

    Oh stop being a complete drama queen. It doesn't appear that any popular PC laptop comes standard with a 13" 1440x900 display. Here are a couple of common small notebooks by screen size, resolution, pixel count, and PPI.

    Thinkpad T410
    14.1" Standard - 1280x768 (983,040, 105 ppi)

    Inspiron 14R
    14.1" Standard - 1366x768 (1,049,088, 111 ppi)

    MacBook Pro
    13.3" Standard - 1280x800 (1,024,000, 113 ppi)

    Pavilion dm3t
    13.3" Standard - 1366x768 (1,049,088, 118 ppi)

    Vaio S
    13.3" Standard - 1366x768 (1,049,088, 118 ppi)

    Based on this information, it seems that rather than pathetic, or screwed up the 13" MacBook Pro is merely average. There are common machines both above and below it. The difference between 1366x768 and 1280x800 is a mere 2.4%. Note also that the MBP has a nicer looking screen (better gamut, wider viewing angles, generally better contrast) than most of these competitors.

    A highres 13.3" MBP looks like it'd be nice. Is it the end of the world, is it pathetic, is it monumentally horrendous? Doesn't appear to be.
     

Share This Page