I don't know what games you're playing...overall I never expected to be able to game on a 13" laptop.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Should the 13" even be considered "Pro"?
- Thread starter nStyle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know what games you're playing...overall I never expected to be able to game on a 13" laptop.
Yes, as I mentioned earlier, I would never blame a company for me buying the wrong computer. That's not what this is about. It's not even about who these computers are for. I'm just saying, comparatively speaking, the 13" is no where near the 15"'s level. Apple can name it whatever the hell they want, I'm just saying it seems foolish to lump the two in together as being in the same category, IMO.
This is purely a hypothetical thread that some people are taking too seriously.
Huh? It only cost $180 to have 16GB RAM in my new 13" rMBP - hardly creating anywhere near a price parity with the 15" rMBP.
As I said in my post, there are times when I plug it into my two big widescreen monitors.
I don't think it's foolish. They both run higher TDP CPU's compared to most Ultrabooks & MacBook Airs, they both have high-end components & Apple need to distinguish these notebooks from the Air/12" MacBook lines. At the end of the day, Pro simply signifies that they are the high-end MacBook models. People take the 'Pro' label too literally.
Any machine can be a pro machine if it's used by professionals for professional use.
What about the business or accountant professional that uses a MBA or 13" rMBP? In that case even the MBA would be a Pro machine. Is said person not a Professional just because they don't do 4K video editing?
I don't play fps or anything--just stuff like Civ Beyond Earth. It can handle that game pretty well maxed out.
That's because you bought the base model and upgraded to 16GB. Most folks who opt for 16GB are going from the mid-range or high-end model. Add $200 on the $1799 model and you are paying the same price for a machine that is still significantly less powerful than the 15" regardless of the smaller form factor and bigger SSD. The value vs price graph of 13" rMBP tanks fast after the $1500-$1700 mark, IMO unless the form factor is worth more to you.
Last edited:
I didn't buy the 13" for gaming, but I've actually managed to get batman Arkham city running at 50 fps on HD 720p with medium graphics settings and it looks great, also grid works smoothly at 720p even with antialiasing. (but the fans kick in)
The 15" is not great for gaming either because of the mid range graphics card, I've watched videos on youtube of tests and at 1080p on medium or high settings current advanced games run at 30 fps often, which is not a good gaming experience.
Last edited:
To be honest there is not that much more the 15" can do than the 13" - its just mildly more capable with graphics processing - as I said earlier, the graphics card in the 15" is not that good, and doesn't really deserve the pro moniker either
Does anyone remember the keynote in which the MacBook was decided that it would be called the MacBook Pro? They simply added a few new ports and because of that, it was called a Pro. I was watching that very keynote a few weeks ago. I believe it was the 2010 keynote when they upgraded the 2010 white MB. It was the natural progression of the aluminum MB that year.
I'm a professional dish washer and I can safely say that I can wash dishes just as well owning a 13" MBP as I could as owner of a 15" MBP.
I would consider the 13" "pro". After all it has a CPU that is much better than the majority of laptops sold similarly (28 watt vs 15 watt, pretty big difference in my usage especially when turbo boosting). The GPU is also better than the competitor's pro (most use 5500 while the rMBP uses the 6100). Not to mention a very well calibrated display. Long battery life when necessary. And to add one an actually decent amount of ports helped by the fact the two Thunderbolts are very adaptable. And it's pretty light and sturdy for a laptop with its performance.
Valid point I guess. He didn't mention which model people were buying the extra memory for. The base model with 16GB is a great system for anything I throw at it. I think it is actually an amazing laptop for the price. I didn't need more than 128GB internal on the laptop.
I use my iMac for any serious heavy lifting.
Even the 15" doesn't have a dedicated GPU until you spend $2500. It couldn't be more of a rip off.
I agree. The kind of laptop you can buy for $2500 compared to the 15" MBP with the discrete GPU takes a huge dump all over it.
Last edited:
Let's not also forget that a large amount of companies switch to Apple because of it's security. Apple has a ''monopoly'' (I used that VERY loosely) on their computers. The Pro has more than enough power to accomplish majority of what people want to do.
Sounds like you are confusing 3d gaming or modelling with "Pro" use.
Sounds like you have unrealistic expectations about number of cores vs. form factor.
The 13" is a Pro machine. Why?
The display quality, the additional ports. the card reader. The dual thunderbolt ports.
3d modelling and gaming are not the only things that define a "pro" machine.
the 13" is for people who make a living with their computer (i.e., professional use as opposed to recreational), require more ports than an air, but don't want to lug a 15" machine around.
Like myself for example. I'm a network guy. I use serial dongles, card readers, a heap of terminal sessions, VMware, etc.
I have absolutely zero need for discrete GPU. However, I do use my machine for "real work". Could i get away with an MBA? Well, maybe. But spec an MBA to anywhere near my Pro and its virtually the same price. Except with a crap screen.
Last edited:
Not really.
The professional level GPUs are not about higher performance so much. They are about proper driver support that does things that professional 3d applications use.
Gaming GPUs and Quadros (for example) do different things in their drivers, and if you try calling for support with a large number of pro modelling applications with a consumer grade GPU (under Windows) they'll tell you it's not supported.
Because the gaming GPUs make trade-offs for speed that are detrimental to 3d modelling, etc.
It would be interesting to compare the current mid level and processor in the 15" with the NVIDIA 970 or 980M for programmes across the board then, I have the feeling the NVIDIA would wipe the floor with it
They should... the 970M draws 81 watts, more power than the ENTIRE 15" Macbook Pro including CPU, screen, storage, and everything else. The power supply on the Macbook Pro is only 85 watts. The 980m draws a staggering 100+ watts and has to be mounted on it's own expansion card. These are the cards you think are reasonable options?
This thread is going on a tangent. It's dead simple that the word "Pro" means the top model in their respective category regardless of the specs. For 13" it's called the Pro with retina > Pro classic > Air (even though Air is faster than Pro classic these days)
Hell even OEMs like Dell use the same moniker: Dell venue and Dell Venue Pro even though a professional with serious emphasis on computing power will never use the Dell Venue Pro just because it has the "Pro"
Hell even OEMs like Dell use the same moniker: Dell venue and Dell Venue Pro even though a professional with serious emphasis on computing power will never use the Dell Venue Pro just because it has the "Pro"
yes it is just a marketing term to denote a more capable system beyond the average consumer needs - it is more misplaced by other companies such as microsoft and samsung calling some of their tablets pro, although you can do some high quality work on both, depending on your profession
I question if the graphics card in the 15" is justifiably a "pro level" thing compared to graphics cards that are available in other laptops. My bet is the high end Nvidia ones would cope much better with advanced graphics programmes and things like 4K processing than whats in the 15"