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.
The 13" has better graphics than the 15"/17" most of the time, for most users
- Thread starter gianly1985
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm just saying "better HORSEPOWER".
Plus, your question could apply to "Arrandale vs Penryn" for 90% of users, still people waited months for this update, made benchmarks and stuff like that. We're here to share this kind of "fine tuning" thoughts.
so your mbp is really a mac pro that you can move from plug to plug.. sounds like imac to me..
and when your 330m turns off.. your gui animation becomes MUCH slower?? lol
its like having a ferrari and a moped combo lol... except sometimes you're driving the ferrari with a helmet and sometimes you're riding the moped with no helmet.. cuz you just don't know! lol
Good thread. I knew the OP would get hammered by the MR regulars. Maybe this is why 13 is c2d, to try and negate any precieved advantage of having no junky Intel graphics.
Isn't the dockbar itself "snappier" on some integrated GPU than other? I remember to have read stuff like that back in 2007....like x3100 snappier than GMA950...so I don't think that it's EXACTLY the same experience, but I can accept that from the 9400M on (so 9400M, 320M and intelHD) we have enough power to run the gui without slowdowns.... still, the 13" users will be using a better GPU most of the time, that's all, I'm not saying anybody should be particularly concerned about that.
i think the issue is a lot of people bought the 15 because of the i5 processor even though they really wanted a 13 with iX processor..
now there are many who don't need or will never use the graphical power or the 330m but stuck with the dilemma that the switching graphics can cause problems with battery life if certain apps are open even while not being used..
it's too bad.. because i'm sure apple planned that they can up sell people to the 15 because of arrandale even though it's 600 more
now there are many who don't need or will never use the graphical power or the 330m but stuck with the dilemma that the switching graphics can cause problems with battery life if certain apps are open even while not being used..
it's too bad.. because i'm sure apple planned that they can up sell people to the 15 because of arrandale even though it's 600 more
You guys need to get your car analogies right. It's like comparing a v6 car with a top speed of 120 and a v12 car with a top speed of 200. When they drive at 35 mph the v12 has the technology to turn off some cylinders to save fuel. Even with the cylinders off it does 35mph just fine. Your argument is ridiculous because there are no benefits to how your GUI runs between intel and 320m.
You say you're talking about horsepower? Then you need to take into account the 330m which obviously has more horsepower than the 320m.
You say you're talking about horsepower? Then you need to take into account the 330m which obviously has more horsepower than the 320m.
But all that horsepower is "parked" for 90% of the time for a lot of users....you know, the kind of users whom the base MBP 15" with 9400M was targeted to.....
Said who? At what resolution? Even on the 2560x1440 yet-to-be ACD? Or in 10.7 funkier GUI next year? That's quite clueless future-proofing, i know, STILL being aware of this "slight" differences in horsepower is better than not knowing at all...it's not an "argument", it's sharing a thought...
Good. Most of the time, 15" and 17" MBP should be using the Intel IGP since it maximizes battery life. If you are comparing pure power consumption the Core i5/i7 use less power since CPU + IGP are a combined 35W TDP, while in the 13" MBP the Core 2 Duo is 25W and the IGP is presumably 12W just like the 9400M it replaces. So putting a Core 2 Duo and 320M in the 15" and 17" MBP will reduce battery life.
In terms of common tasks like browsing, mail, iTunes of course the Intel IGP is sufficient. Those programs have very limited needs for GPU acceleration. Really how much performance do you need reading text? You are not using the GPU when listening to music or even transcoding music. Basic drawing of windows and basic OS X graphics effects are handled by Quartz Extreme which was designed to run on the GeForce 2 MX and original Radeon which are DX7 GPUs which no shader support. Intel's IGP may not break records, but it's far superior to those old GPUs. More advanced OS X effects are handled by Core Image and Core Animation which runs fine on the GMA 950 and the Core i5/i7's IGP is more than 3 times faster. Feature-wise the Core i5/i7 IGP is comparable to the 320M since Intel's IGP can do 1080p H.264 acceleration, Flash acceleration as available on Windows, and even light OpenCL acceleration, if Apple would write the drivers to support these functions. In any case, you are not losing out on the OS X interface experience or losing performance doing general tasks like browsing, word processing, view media, by using the Intel IGP versus the 320M. All the while having lower battery consumption. And for tasks that really push the GPU, the 15" and 17" MBP have a discrete GPU to back them up which the 13" MBP doesn't have. I fail to see a disadvantage.
Or perhaps they are doing some not uncommon tasks like playing some games, editing some family movies in iMovie or transcoding some video to their iDevice all of which could benefit from the faster processor and/or faster graphics card in the 15" and 17" MBP compared to the 13" MBP, especially if the application is well multi-threaded to take advantage of Hyperthreading.
Exactly!!!!!
EXCEPT they have their pride that their ridiculously long wait for Apple to get off their @sses and update their laptops was not all for nothing.
I mean what would you do if you waited many months for an iCore processor in the the 13" only to be let down?
Probably you'd buy a 15".
And let's face it, most people buying now are not that concerned about how much it costs...at this point its all about ego.
all the performance you listed are time based.. i guess saving 5 minutes when encoding a video for youtube is a big difference
i said it before and i'm saying it again.. if your livelihood depended on your mac.. you're using a mac pro.. if your livelihood depended on your computer.. you might be using a pc workstation.. if you're a true gamer.. you already have a pc gaming machine.. if you're on a forum screaming performance.. you're a fanboy giggly over the performance you have but will likely never use..
When you have 8+ spaces opened it slows down a bit in animation. Actually its not smooth and stutters a little.
Same goes for when your looking at an intensive webpage with alot of visuals, scrolling up and down is much faster/smoother with the dedicated gpu enabled.
The iMac isnt portable, and its a waste of a good screen when you upgrade to a new machine so I dont like iMacs. Not into the all in one thing (exception to the iMac G4 with the swivel flat panels since these are discontinued and I wouldnt be replacing/upgrading them).
As with a mbp you can buy a separate monitor to hook up to as a desktop. And if you were to upgrade to a new mbp in the future, you can use that same monitor.
Oh and thats a pretty bad analogy.
I dont like the 13" mbp as well either. It doesnt feel like a real notebook, it feels more like a little toy with a small screen. It gives me a neck cramp trying to use one for more than 15 minutes.
13" MBP: Little crappy 13" LCD with huge repulsive bezel
15": Slightly larger, better LCD. It's actually decent. Large crappy bezel still persists, but not as badly
17" AWESOME. Especially with the antiglare option
17" with 800x600 max resolution is AWESOMERERER because i can see it from far away and not get neck cramps
The battery loss in that situation is negligble. If you're switching between Photoshop and other programs, I really can't imagine that Photoshop would be sitting there for over an hour or at most two without you once again using it or simply closing it... According to Apple, if you switch the 330M permantly ON, you only loose one hour of battery life. That means you loose less than 10 minutes (approx 7.5 mins) of battery life per hour switched to the 330M over the IntelHD. You loose fifteen minutes of battery life if you open photoshop and simply ignore that app for two hours. This is a great improvement over logging out or being forced to select one or the other.
What a stupid thing to point out just to make people feel better that the 13" is still stuck on Core 2 Duo CPUs.
If the 15"/17" users are doing basic tasks that don't utilise the GPU, then the Intel HD Graphics is more than sufficient to handle it. If the user is actually doing something graphically intensive, then the 13" users will be wishing that they had a 330M instead. The only possible scenario where the 320M actually seems better would be if you are playing some old 10 year old game where the 320M is sufficient to play it and the 330M is just wasting all it's power on it.
The only reason why the 13" doesn't have Intel Graphics inside is because it's still stuck on the older Core 2 technology. If it were to use Arrandale CPUs instead, the Intel Graphics will automatically come along with it.
Face it, people only make threads like this to make themselves feel good about being stuck on the older Core 2 technology while the entire world is using Core i3/5/7.
There is no difference in doing basic tasks with a 320M or with the Intel HD Graphics. There is however a huge difference running 3D intensive programs with a 320M and a 330M. The 13" may be using the better graphic processor most of the time, but that doesn't mean it does a better job than the Intel HD Graphics.
If the 15"/17" users are doing basic tasks that don't utilise the GPU, then the Intel HD Graphics is more than sufficient to handle it. If the user is actually doing something graphically intensive, then the 13" users will be wishing that they had a 330M instead. The only possible scenario where the 320M actually seems better would be if you are playing some old 10 year old game where the 320M is sufficient to play it and the 330M is just wasting all it's power on it.
The only reason why the 13" doesn't have Intel Graphics inside is because it's still stuck on the older Core 2 technology. If it were to use Arrandale CPUs instead, the Intel Graphics will automatically come along with it.
Face it, people only make threads like this to make themselves feel good about being stuck on the older Core 2 technology while the entire world is using Core i3/5/7.
There is no difference in doing basic tasks with a 320M or with the Intel HD Graphics. There is however a huge difference running 3D intensive programs with a 320M and a 330M. The 13" may be using the better graphic processor most of the time, but that doesn't mean it does a better job than the Intel HD Graphics.
What is the use of "better horsepower"? Nothing at all. It does not improve anything. Ever. A better processor, even though not everyone might indeed need it or profit from it, can improve working. (I do not know how else to write this in English, sorry. The word "working" was as close as I could get.) In other words, this topic does not make any sense.
Why not? I wanna be comfortable and forgetful on my Mac, like leaving stuff open in background (that's what my 4gb-8gb ram is for), never rebooting it for months, ecc.
Of course we're mentioning Photoshop but it could be something else.
Only in certain test conditions:
13-inch MacBook Pro testing conducted by Apple in March 2010 using preproduction 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo-based MacBook Pro units. 15-inch MacBook Pro testing conducted by Apple in March 2010 using preproduction 2.66GHz Intel Core i7-based MacBook Pro units. 17-inch MacBook Pro testing conducted by Apple in March 2010 using preproduction 2.53GHz Intel Core i5-based MacBook Pro units. Battery life depends on configuration and use. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information. The wireless productivity test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing various websites and editing text in a word processing document with display brightness set to 50%.
I totally agree, although an "IntelHD-only mode" would be a welcomed addition.
You totally missed the point of this thread.
I'm just sharing a curious fact that came to my mind.
I'm not saying anybody interested in the 15"/17" should be concerned about it.
Get your facts right:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/9679543/
This user prefer the GT330M over the IntelHD for non-3D-PIXAR-rendering-stuff like browsing or running the GUI of OSX with a lot of spaces.
So he PERCEIVES a difference between IntelHD and GT330M even in non-Game non-3D-work-stuff tasks.
I guess a difference (of course SMALLER) could be perceived between the IntelHD and the 320M. Or let's get back to the GMA950 and save money, for some users here it's all the same for non-Crysis tasks.
If that's all you are doing, there are cheaper alternatives to even the 13" MBP to accomplish that. I'd question why would someone bother with a MBP at all if they are only doing that.