The 13" has better graphics than the 15"/17" most of the time, for most users

[gianly1985]

I've just realized that.

- 320M > 9400M > IntelHD

- on MBP 13": You get the 320M all the time. Battery rated 10hrs.

- on MBP 15"/17" if auto-switching is turned ON: You get the IntelHD most of the time and the GT330 only when launching heavy stuff. But the typical browsing/mail/itunes users will have the GT330 off most of the time. So for most of the time, those 1799$-2xxx$ users will get a worse GPU than the MBP 13" users.

- on MBP 15"/17" if auto-switching is turned OFF: You get the GT300M all the time, but you waste battery life for simple tasks. It's less "optimized" than using the 320M all the time.

- on MBP 15"/17" if one day Apple WILL enable an "IntelHD-only mode": You get IntelHD all the time, worse than 320M.

So mind that if you're gonna do web browsing, office, PDFs and itunes 90% of the time.

Of course here I'm talking about the GPU only, one could have other reasons to choose the 15"/17" over the 13" (screen, CPU, etc.).

 

[dukebound85]

Those things you say you do 90% of the time, the intel graphics can handle perfectly fine

The 15" and 17" is a much better option

 

[nconnella]

..... this is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. You yourself invalidated it by saying "this is based only on the GPU". I agree, they could have gone with something better than the IntelHD but your argument is still completely invalid.

 

[gianly1985]

Those things you say you do 90% of the time, the intel graphics can handle perfectly fine

I didn't say it can't or people have to be disappointed by that, I'm just saying that MBP 15"/17" users are going back to a worse-than-2008-9400M graphic horsepower unless they launch Photoshop or other stuff that "awakes" the GT330M.

The 15" and 17" is a much better option

I'm not arguing that.

ps: a i5 13" + 320M + upcoming 27" ACD Led 2560x1440 would kick asses. A man can dream.....in the end, I think I'll go for this setup even with C2D 13".....

 

[MBHockey]

lol @ this thread.

 

[gianly1985]

..... this is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. You yourself invalidated it by saying "this is based only on the GPU". I agree, they could have gone with something better than the IntelHD but your argument is still completely invalid.

Learn to read man.

You yourself invalidated it by saying "this is based only on the GPU"

Yup, I invalitated it myself...'cause I'm retarded, ya know.

Or maybe I wrote that disclaimer to avoid annoying over-presuming posts....

 

[gianly1985]

lol @ this thread.

Or:

- Why Apple didn't include an "IntelHD only mode"? You know that if you're using Mail but Photoshop is open in background (but not used), you're wasting a GT 330M to write an email or read macrumors? (--> read that on the Engadget review)

- Why not a 15" i5+320M?

This thread is about the Apple switching technology and GPU choosing, and how that create the paradox I described above.

I'm not endorsing the 13" MBP, I'm just sharing thoughts about the GPUs.

 

[liljoedaprince]

Or:

- Why Apple didn't include an "IntelHD only mode"? You know that if you're using Mail but Photoshop is open in background (but not used), you're wasting a GT 330M to write an email or read macrumors? (--> read that on the Engadget review)

- Why not a 15" i5+320M?

This thread is about the Apple switching technology and GPU choosing, and how that create the paradox I described above.

I'm not endorsing the 13" MBP, I'm just sharing thoughts about the GPUs.

Your argument is ridiculous.v

 

[MacModMachine]

im completely agree with this post,

cpu boost is negligible for me, the gpu is better and 10 hour battery....great deal in my opinion.

i5...i7....bla bla


ill stick to my 13" with dual ssd's and 8g ram....

 

[dukebound85]

Or:

- Why Apple didn't include an "IntelHD only mode"? You know that if you're using Mail but Photoshop is open in background (but not used), you're wasting a GT 330M to write an email or read macrumors? (--> read that on the Engadget review)

- Why not a 15" i5+320M?

This thread is about the Apple switching technology and GPU choosing, and how that create the paradox I described above.

I'm not endorsing the 13" MBP, I'm just sharing thoughts about the GPUs.

What paradox? If you don't want to use the graphics power, then why would you have graphics hungary apps open to begin with?

Now that's the paradox

 

[silversx]

the biggest problem with the 15/17 graphics is that the 330m stays on and is triggered by launching of certain apps that trigger os level api such as photoshop..

you open photoshop.. your 330m kicks in.. you minimize photoshop to search the web or reply to some emails.. 300m stays ON.. because photoshop is ON..

this means if you want to turn off 300m you need to close any apps that trigger the switch.. simply minimizing does not work..

until they can make graphic switching based on actual load level and not triggers in the os.. you either lose battery or you close apps a lot..

this same issue plagues optimus.. even though optimus keeps both intel and discrete on..

 

[highscheme]

Moving Priuses are going faster than parked Ferraris

 

[7even]

Moving Priuses are going faster than parked Ferraris

And parked Ferraris burn less fuel

 

[gianly1985]

What paradox?

Most of the time, 2010 MBPs 15"/17" will use worse-than-9400M graphic horsepower, whereas 13" users will get a better-than-9400M graphic horsepower all the time. If you look at the prices of those machines, it's kind of a paradox.

If you don't want to use the graphics power, then why would you have graphics hungary apps open to begin with?

Now that's the paradox

That's ANOTHER paradox, not the main one.
About THIS paradox, well sometimes you leave stuff open in the background, especially if you have 4gb-8gb of ram....maybe you were using Photoshop and then started reading a long thread on a forum....

 

[jjahshik32]

On my 17" i7 MBP, I got roughly 11 hours of battery life. Well 10 hours and 20 minutes of battery life was what I really got but there was 43 minutes still left on the battery.

Anyway, auto gpu switching is the best invention ever!!

 

[gianly1985]

Moving Priuses are going faster than parked Ferraris

Exactly.

MBP 13": Prius all the time.

MBP 15"/17": Parked Ferrari + motorbike most of the time. Sometimes Ferrari parked with the engine on while not necessary (like browsing web with PS in the background).

 

[jjahshik32]

Exactly.

MBP 13": Prius all the time.

MBP 15"/17": Parked Ferrari + motorbike most of the time. Sometimes Ferrari parked with the engine on while not necessary (like browsing web with PS in the background).

Anyway, i7 15"/17" that has the power of a first gen 2.66GHz Mac Pro desktop + auto gpu switching + 10 hours of battery life will crush those puny 13" core 2 duo mbp anyday in all aspects of performance.

Using my 17" as a desktop though is awesome, I just uncheck the auto gpu switching so that it will utilize the 330m and everything is instantly MUCH faster in the GUI animation department!

 

[gianly1985]

On my 17" i7 MBP, I got roughly 11 hours of battery life. Well 10 hours and 20 minutes of battery life was what I really got but there was 43 minutes still left on the battery.

Anyway, auto gpu switching is the best invention ever!!

Not arguing that, they're great machines with industry-leading battery life, the 15" and 17" are great options, even if one was concerned by my argument he could use the GT 330M all the time (disabling the auto-switching) and still get a very good battery life.

 

[therealseebs]

I don't think I buy it -- for ordinary tasks, there's no difference between the GPUs anyway. Anything where you'd care, you'll be getting the 330M on the machines that have it.

 

[gianly1985]

I don't think I buy it -- for ordinary tasks, there's no difference between the GPUs anyway.

So basically GMA950, X3100, IntelHD, 9400M and 320M Macbook/MBP users do get the same experience while running the GUI of OSX and doing ordinary stuff?

Anything where you'd care, you'll be getting the 330M on the machines that have it.

Of course, that kind of versatility could be a killer feature for some users. Overkill for others.

 

[andiwm2003]

i agree with the OP here. the GPU solution for the 13" is very good. i wish they had a low end 15" with the same GPU always on. this GPU seems to give enough power at ridiculously low power consumption. it's less an argument what is the better notebook since you pay in the 15" for the times when you really need the high power GPU. but in the last MBP's they introduced the low end 15" with the 9400 only because there was a large number of people who were happy with it. right now we don't have a similar option in the 15" MBP.

 

[Raje]

I noticed through all of your bashing of the 13" and the 15"/17" models by you guys one of the OP's questions remains unanswered. Why didn't Apple use the 320M? Simple answer Intel requires that Intel i3/i5/i7 processors use Intel HD graphics, this is why the 13" did not have an i3/i5/i7 processor

 

[dukebound85]

So basically GMA950, X3100, IntelHD, 9400M and 320M Macbook/MBP users do get the same experience while running the GUI of OSX and doing ordinary stuff?
.

I recently upgraded from the GMA950 mb to the 9400m one and in day to day stuff, I can't tell a difference at all

 

[yohannus]

I've just realized that.

- 320M > 9400M > IntelHD

- on MBP 13": You get the 320M all the time. Battery rated 10hrs.

- on MBP 15"/17" if auto-switching is turned ON: You get the IntelHD most of the time and the GT330 only when launching heavy stuff. But the typical browsing/mail/itunes users will have the GT330 off most of the time. So for most of the time, those 1799$-2xxx$ users will get a worse GPU than the MBP 13" users.

- on MBP 15"/17" if auto-switching is turned OFF: You get the GT300M all the time, but you waste battery life for simple tasks. It's less "optimized" than using the 320M all the time.

- on MBP 15"/17" if one day Apple WILL enable an "IntelHD-only mode": You get IntelHD all the time, worse than 320M.

So mind that if you're gonna do web browsing, office, PDFs and itunes 90% of the time.

Of course here I'm talking about the GPU only, one could have other reasons to choose the 15"/17" over the 13" (screen, CPU, etc.).

You have a ridiculous argument. How is the 320m better than intel during browsing/iTunes/email?

 

[therealseebs]

So basically GMA950, X3100, IntelHD, 9400M and 320M Macbook/MBP users do get the same experience while running the GUI of OSX and doing ordinary stuff?

Yup. Everything out there has WAY more power than it needs for ordinary stuff (probably including video playback at anything short of 1080p). It's only when you start really using the 3D hardware that anyone's gonna notice a difference.