Should I get a 2010 15" Macbook Pro i5 or 2011 13" Macbook Pro i5 for video editing ?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by irunthistown, Mar 20, 2011.

  1. irunthistown macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    #1
    I plan on doing HD video editing in 1080p. Im tryna keep my budget under $1300 and Apple just released the Sandybridge for 2011 in the 13" Macbook Pro. Then I have the opprotunity to buy a mid 2010 15" Macbook Pro i5 so which should I get ? Which would be faster ? Also can they both handle FCP, AVID ? I hear the 13" cant handle FCP is this true ? Let me know. Thanks
     
  2. huythanhv2 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    #2
    Hmm it might be about the screen resolution as well, not only the speed...

    I will go for the 15" one =)
     
  3. ThaDoggg macrumors 6502a

    ThaDoggg

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Location:
    Peterborough, Canada
    #3
    I am trying to decide the same thing but leaning more and more towards the 13". Faster and more portable. An external monitor is necessary anyway so will have that extra screen real estate when at the desk.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  4. irunthistown thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    #4
    Real question does the 13" supports FCP, AE, AVID, CS5 ? People say the 13" doest support FCP
     
  5. Hallivand macrumors regular

    Hallivand

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #5
    The 13" certainly supports FCP, just that the video card might hinder certain rendering elements. But for quick edits, the 13" can do fine.
     
  6. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #6
    It supports and handles all four of those perfectly fine. The base 13" model has a faster processor than every configuration of the previous mid-2010 MBP's except for one model(2.8 GHz), and the high-end 13" is faster than every mid-2010 MBP(processor wise)

    The video card is faster than a 9400M which handles those programs perfectly fine. You can run all of those on a Core 2 Duo with a 9400M which is significantly weaker than the current 13" MBP.
     
  7. fs454 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles / Boston
    #7
    Editing on a 1280x800 glass-covered display will be painful, whereas the 15" antiglare high-res on the 15" is one of the best screens for video editing and color correction on a notebook.

    Even if you don't spring for that display, anything is better than 1280x800.
     
  8. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #8
    Anyone who thinks they're going to be color calibrating on a TN display is going to in for a rude surprise regardless of whether the screen is matte or glossy. I say go for your preference on the display on the notebook because any serious professional color work should be done on either an external IPS monitor or an NTSC TV(depending on your work). Even then color calibrating for video can only take you so far because the client will likely be watching your content on a completely different screen. For print, you shouldn't be looking at your laptop display either but that's a whole other story.
     
  9. Jmouse macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    #9
    is price a factory to consider?

    I believe 2010 15inch would be no more than a 2011 13inch
     
  10. Charlie Sheen macrumors 6502

    Charlie Sheen

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Location:
    Mars
    #10
    Go for the 15" one. The bigger screen is good to have when doing some "real" work. For text editing the smaller one had done the job
     
  11. irunthistown thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    #11
    But Sandy Bridge is better and newer technology and 20-30% faster.
     
  12. SlickShoes macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    #12
    But the 2010 15" has a far superior graphics chip compared to the 2011 13".
     
  13. adnoh macrumors 6502a

    adnoh

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
  14. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #14
    2010 15" for sure. Why?

    - Screen
    - Far better GPU
    - Similar CPU
    - Screen

    I realise I wrote screen twice, but it is just going to be so much better. You don't want a glossy screen, you want a high resolution matte screen. And the graphics card will likely provide a huge boost in some current and most future software.
     
  15. irunthistown thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    #15
    So a used 2010 would be the best bang for the dollar now ? Instead of buying the 2011 13" i5 ?
     
  16. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #16
    There's almost no difference. Just a small clock speed bump.
     
  17. irunthistown thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    #18
    So is it worth paying $200 more for the other ?
     
  18. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #19
    That depends. Do you make money with the HD video editing and/or would like to save some rendering time (a minute or two on a one hour render)?
     
  19. mulo macrumors 68020

    mulo

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Location:
    Behind you
    #20
    do keep in mind the i7 has a different memory controller granting speeds twice as fast compared to the i5
     
  20. irunthistown thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
  21. smetvid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    #22
    Very little. Also it is pretty hard to give an answer because rendering can happen from anywhere to 1 second to 1 week depending on the project and complexity. At best the cpu is only 5% faster when you look at the clock speed. A cpu is not a miracle worker. If it is clocked 5% higher it isn't going to magically run 20% faster. Given similar cpu architectures of course. So this means at best your render time could be 5% faster. That means a 60 minute render would take 57 minutes. Not a lot if you ask me. That is also assuming it will be 5% faster. Some applications may be close to 5% while others may only be 2% faster.

    Honestly you would be better off using that extra $200.00 towards an external raid storage system or ram which will help you out a lot more for editing then the sliver of a cpu bump.
     
  22. irunthistown thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
  23. Mac-key macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Location:
    Alabama
    #24
    why aren't you looking at the 2011 models? They are TWICE as fast as the 2010 machines.

    I'm assuming the answer is price, but for a few hundred bucks more you can get a much faster computer
     
  24. FOX160 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    #25
    Hope this helps I have the base 13 inch i5 MBP
    I use this with my Contour 1080HD and photography too.

    My set up is The base 13inch i5 MBP and a 1TB gig rugged external hard drive
    and a Samsung 2333 HD Samsung SyncMaster TV/monitor

    All i do is load up my pictures or videos on location and then hook it up to
    the Samsung TV/Monitor when home to do the editing.

    All the above came to £ 1,350.00p pounds sterling and makes the equipment
    more usable.

    Like the guy in the Apple store said if I was looking to buy a 2010 model
    before the upgraded 2011 models, i would have had to buy the 15 inch model
    but has the newer models are much faster i only need the 13 inch base model.
     

Share This Page