Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

So, 13 inch owners, you got your sandy bridge with intel HD 3000 now. Happy?

Only games I play on this 13" is TD games and angry birds. My Desktop is built for gaming so even the 17" MBP is pathetic in comparison LOL
 
LoganT said:
If Apple were to remove the optical drive in the next Macbook Pro, I wonder if they would put in a bigger battery or a dedicated graphics chip.
Click to expand...

I doubt they will. While most people on here seem to not use the drive (myself included), it is still an installation standard and it is still something many people use. The dirt cheap cost of CDs/DVDs also maintain it as an attractive option.
 
scottgroovez said:
Why have Apple not given it a GPU or at least an upgrade option?
Click to expand...

reason #1: Intel refused to allow Nvidia to make chipsets for Sandy Bridge. Intel decided to do this on their own (once again) and will fail (once again).

reason #2: There ain't no room in the MBP13 for a discrete GPU. But thank god Apple kept that useless optical drive.
 
NickZac said:
I doubt they will. While most people on here seem to not use the drive (myself included), it is still an installation standard and it is still something many people use. The dirt cheap cost of CDs/DVDs also maintain it as an attractive option.
Click to expand...
IIRC, Apple was the first company to discontinue floppy drives on their computers, and the first to discontinue CRTs for LCDs. With the next MBP and iMac, I hope they are the first to ditch optical drives completely. Seeing how external drives can be bought for $40 if you really need one, I was disappointed they weren't removed from the MBP this time around.
 
riotshield said:
IIRC, Apple was the first company to discontinue floppy drives on their computers, and the first to ditch CRTs for LCDs. With the next MBP and iMac, I hope they are the first to ditch optical drives. Seeing how external drives can be bought for $40 if you really need one, I was disappointed they weren't removed from the MBP this time around.
Click to expand...

But when floppies were dropped, they had almost no value for program installation whatsoever, and CD had become dirt cheap and had hundreds of times more capacity. There isn't anything to replace the role of an optical drive yet. How much software comes with a disk? Even OS X comes on a DVD. If flash memory started to be used for this, it could replace the disk, but I have to wonder how that would impact costs.

Also, floppy drives never had movies on them. DVD is still the dominant entertainment format. Dropping the optical drive outright would likely hurt sales. Now allowing a configuration to delete/add the optical drive wouldn't be a bad idea at all, but outright elimination could suck.
 
NickZac said:
But when floppies were dropped, they had almost no value for program installation whatsoever, and CD had become dirt cheap and had hundreds of times more capacity.
Click to expand...

Outdated analogy. Today we have broadband to replace optical media for installation issues and video content. Indeed, Apple is counting on this as the de-facto replacement medium.

It's not a question of *if* the OD goes to the dumpster... it's a matter of "when".

And I don't mean to queue the whiners about installing CS5 or Final Cut via a download. Live with it or order the flash drive version.
 
bozz2006 said:
So, how 'bout that ol' HD3000 inegrated video?
Click to expand...
It sux. Integrated graphics in a $1200 laptop. LOL!

Those that defend it will rationalize anything. If graphics aren't important to these people then I can only wonder why they didn't just shed 2 pounds and go with the MBA. (Or at least the new ones on the horizon).
 
Al Coholic said:
It sux. Integrated graphics in a $1200 laptop. LOL!

Those that defend it will rationalize anything. If graphics aren't important to these people then I can only wonder why they didn't just shed 2 pounds and go with the MBA. (Or at least the new ones on the horizon).
Click to expand...

I don't own a 13" but its funny you say you wonder why people just don't shed two pounds and get the MBA if graphics aren't important. You do realize the new 13" have better CPU's right?
 
Al Coholic said:
It sux. Integrated graphics in a $1200 laptop. LOL!

Those that defend it will rationalize anything. If graphics aren't important to these people then I can only wonder why they didn't just shed 2 pounds and go with the MBA. (Or at least the new ones on the horizon).
Click to expand...

Because for professional uses the vastly superior CPU matters?
Processing multimedia, compiling code, running virtual environment. Not everyone just use their laptops for games and play on the internet :)
 
Al Coholic said:
It sux. Integrated graphics in a $1200 laptop. LOL!

Those that defend it will rationalize anything. If graphics aren't important to these people then I can only wonder why they didn't just shed 2 pounds and go with the MBA. (Or at least the new ones on the horizon).
Click to expand...

go find a wintel laptop with MIMO wireless and see how much it costs including software
 
Smartphones can play HD video flawless, it does not required as power as people believe. Most time, it's a full CPU decode so even a crappy GPU is enough.
 
Icy1007 said:
I completely agree. I have a friend who bought the 13" around the same time that I bought the 15" and the performance difference is staggering.

The 13" MBP is just an aluminum MacBook.
Click to expand...

I can agree that the 13" MBP may not truly be a "Pro" machine in the larger world of computing.

However, compared to the 13" MacBook, for $200 more, I think there are differences which are deserving of the Pro moniker and I can't imagine why people buy the 13" MB over the 13" MBP. Money poorly saved, if you ask me. Especially since MicroCenter sells the base 13" MBP for $1000.
MBP over MB upgrades: aluminum unibody, backlit keyboard, FireWire, SD card slot, larger hard drive. Easily worth $200 in my mind.

And now that the MBP has i5/i7, overall computing performance is greatly improved. MB will be updated with similar innards to the MBP in not too long, though, I reckon.

Cheers.
 
NZed said:
I mean you can tell the difference when you game on a 13" and a 15" right? Running SC2 Medium in HD3000 and running it High on the high end 15" is a real difference. But when gaming on the 320M and HD3000, its really hard to notice any differences like you said in the cores. I also have the C2D but on a 13" 2010 and its really not a gaming machine at all. It sometimes struggles when i have Win 7 on VMware. I actually bought this computer for photoshop editing and other photography related stuffs. But sometimes processing multiple pictures is a pain in the ass... and now i know that i should've bought the 15" back then...
Click to expand...

How does your machine struggle when running your VM?
How much RAM do you give your VM?

I also have the 2.4 2010 13 MBP and find the overall performance great. I give my Win 7 VM (bootcamp partition) 2 cores and 1GB of RAM and it runs well, not super quick like when I'm booted into it, but totally useable for Office 2007, Web browsing, and the like. VMWare is awesome.
Win 7 is running in Fusion right now but nothing is really going on there (Outlook, Word, Excel, and IE open) and it cruises at ~15% CPU.

If Safari is open for a long time though and eaten up a lot of memory (e.g.- ~700MB) and overall free RAM is down to ~15MB, things can start to chug a bit.

I was playing Assassin's Creed a bunch recently in Windows with maxed out settings (no AA) and getting about 21 FPS. A bit older game, but not bad, I think. I'm running the latest (or close to) NVidia drivers (267.76).

In general, it seems fair that GFX performance in the 13" line isn't great, but these aren't 13" gaming machines, you know? The are great computers for overall computing that suffer in gaming, but Apple doesn't do niche markets. Alienware sure does, though!! :p

Cheers, all.
 
GOD I just DONT get you guys Last years 13 inch model you all condemn has totally under powered/useless and should have never be called
a Mac Book Pro and be deleted from the range.

Now your given a power packed 13 inch model and its ooooohhhh ! I Cant play games ?????? better you buy last years 13 inch What the Foooookkkk!!!

Buy a gaming machine ! Or like me a PS3 ? (Da now thats a good idea)

even the 13 inch base model rocks with power. Even saved myself £500 quid sterling as I would have had to buy last years 15 inch model at the time, as I use an contour HD 1080 head cam for downhill Mountain Biking

this goes every where in my bag. I download all video footage and pictures
on location and do all the editing at home on a Samsung sync TV/Monitor

This new 13 inch Base model is a total Bargain.
 
Last edited:
ThaDoggg said:
The same or not I think most people don't play games on their 13". And besides, it's not meant to be a powerhouse like the 15" or 17".
Click to expand...

well it should be, its in the "pro" line. i would totallly understand if it was a regular macbook. but some want some really raw power packaged into a 13" machine. However, the 15 is IMHO just as portable so its not a problem for me.
 
Al Coholic said:
Outdated analogy. Today we have broadband to replace optical media for installation issues and video content. Indeed, Apple is counting on this as the de-facto replacement medium.

It's not a question of *if* the OD goes to the dumpster... it's a matter of "when".

And I don't mean to queue the whiners about installing CS5 or Final Cut via a download. Live with it or order the flash drive version.
Click to expand...

I don't get it, either us canadian's have crap internet or people in america have amazing internet. How fast can you download 10 gigs from the internet??
 
I agree with apple putting the HD3000 only in it, that couldnt really do anything else, what i dont agree with is the "Pro" labelling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back