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

Well shoot, thought I had a 13" picked out...

A

Aspen

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jul 11, 2009
105
4
First, I thought I was going to buy a 13" MBA but have now decided on the 13" MBP due to my concern that the MBA isn't powerful enough. Options are:

The new i5/Intel HD300/320 HDD for $1127 or

Refurbished 2010 2.4GHz Core2 Duo/Nvidia 320M/250 HDD for $929.

This is my secondary travel/take to work computer and will be used to stream stock charts with 5-6 tabs open at the same time and general internet and Office usage.

Cost really isn't a concern; I just need it to work really fast and well. OK, which computer? Thanks for the help.
 
The SNB Core i5 is an excellent improvement over the Core 2 Duo, and the differences between the HD 3000 and 320M (especially if you do not game) are minor.

I'm not sure how much power you need to stream stock charts, but I think either one would suit your needs - the more expensive machine would just be faster.
 
If cost is no object, the 2011. I don't understand why you asked the question to begin with if you aren't concerned about price.
 
Aspen said:
First, I thought I was going to buy a 13" MBA but have now decided on the 13" MBP due to my concern that the MBA isn't powerful enough. Options are:

The new i5/Intel HD300/320 HDD for $1127 or

Refurbished 2010 2.4GHz Core2 Duo/Nvidia 320M/250 HDD for $929.

This is my secondary travel/take to work computer and will be used to stream stock charts with 5-6 tabs open at the same time and general internet and Office usage.

Cost really isn't a concern; I just need it to work really fast and well. OK, which computer? Thanks for the help.
Click to expand...

With your usage i think a MBA would actually be faster due to SSD.
An MBA with 4gb should have no problems whatsoever doing these tasks at all, and you get a much lighter computer
 
I put both my 13 and 11" MacBook Air's through far heavier tasks all day, everyday and they handle it fine.

You will not notice a speed difference between the 13" MBP and MBA based on your uses.

That being said if you're going to go MBP, 2011 is the better buy.

Post back what you end up buying.

Good luck!
 
yeah...if cost no issue and for what you are going to do..

2011 is better choice
 
AppleScruff1 said:
If cost is no object, the 2011. I don't understand why you asked the question to begin with if you aren't concerned about price.
Click to expand...

Well, if they will both function the same, then I'll take the better price. Cost isn't the concern but performance is. Everybody else, thanks for your input.
 
entatlrg said:
I put both my 13 and 11" MacBook Air's through far heavier tasks all day, everyday and they handle it fine.

You will not notice a speed difference between the 13" MBP and MBA based on your uses.

That being said if you're going to go MBP, 2011 is the better buy.

Post back what you end up buying.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

You are certainly making me rethink the MBA vs. MBP once again! No doubt, the MBA is cool and easy to cart around. I forgot to mention that one thing I'm concerned about is font being too small with the MBA but I guess I could make the minimum size font bigger.
 
Aspen said:
Well, if they will both function the same, then I'll take the better price. Cost isn't the concern but performance is. Everybody else, thanks for your input.
Click to expand...

If performance is the concern, then yeah get the i5 over the 2011 C2D between MBP's.

Thinking about your usage.. streaming stocks with multiple tabs and general office use, maybe the 13" MBA is good for you. You'll get a lighter machine with a higher resolution (1440x900) so you can view your tabs with slightly more screen real estate is always good. Only if you don't need more than 256GB drive space. The SSD will help in general usage but the i5 will kill it if you have any CPU work to do which you have not really listed. So yeah MBA would be a great secondary machine for you IMO.
 
Performance wise the i5 in the 2011 MBP is almost twice as fast as the Core2Duo in the 2010 MBP. Plus the Intel IGP 3000 and the nVidia 320m are almost evenly matched expect when gaming.
 
cluthz said:
With your usage i think a MBA would actually be faster due to SSD.
An MBA with 4gb should have no problems whatsoever doing these tasks at all, and you get a much lighter computer
Click to expand...

Since the internet connection is a limiting factor and since the computer would be streaming with multiple tabs open, I was thinking that the MBA Ultimate could be slower than the MBP options because of the less powerful processor even when considering the SSD in the MBA. After seeing some comments here, I may be mistaken.

Would you or anyone else be able to straighten me out?
 
emiljan said:
Performance wise the i5 in the 2011 MBP is almost twice as fast as the Core2Duo in the 2010 MBP. Plus the Intel IGP 3000 and the nVidia 320m are almost evenly matched expect when gaming.
Click to expand...

its faster but not twice as fast according to benchmarks I have seen...

like 30-40% faster
 
Aspen said:
Well, if they will both function the same, then I'll take the better price. Cost isn't the concern but performance is. Everybody else, thanks for your input.
Click to expand...

In your original post you stated that you were worried that the MBA wouldn't have enough power to meet your needs. I thought that you meant that the Core 2 processor wasn't strong enough for you so the only one that would make sense would be the Sandy Bridge. I incorrectly assumed that you already knew that Sandy Bridge is much faster than Core 2 Duo, hence my comment. I apologize for my error.
 
Aspen,

Let's consider everything you mentioned. It is your SECONDARY and TRAVEL computer you plan on using for BROWSING (trust me 6 stock feeds is nothing) and OTHER NON-CPU INTENSIVE TASKS. Sounds like an Air right off the bat.

I am going to assume you are comparing both 13 inch models.

Your decision comes down to a very simple tradeoff - are you willing to pay more money for a machine that's is considerably more portable and, in my opinion, stunningly thin and beautiful? Or would you rather a more future-proof, upgradeable, cheaper solution that has thunderbolt?

Until the new Macbook Pros came out I was in love with the MBAs and was waiting until June for the processor upgrade. The pros came out and thunderbolt and upgradeable ram and ssd sold me. The form factor isn't as portable, weighs a bit more but is plenty portable for me.

The MBA with the ram upgrade was costing me close to 1400. I paid 1100 for a macbook, and through in a RAM upgrade and a Vertex 3 Sata III 120GB SATA drive is going to cost me 300.

The ending result is a MBP lightyears ahead of the MBA. Thunderbolt, DOUBLE (8GB) the RAM, an i5 processor, and compatibility with the fastest ssd hard drive technology yet - promising almost double the speed of a current apple ssd drive. We'll see if they are reliable as they promise.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION: Wait for the new MBA upgrades in June, and then decide :) It's only two months away!

Good luck!
 
AppleScruff1 said:
In your original post you stated that you were worried that the MBA wouldn't have enough power to meet your needs. I thought that you meant that the Core 2 processor wasn't strong enough for you so the only one that would make sense would be the Sandy Bridge. I incorrectly assumed that you already knew that Sandy Bridge is much faster than Core 2 Duo, hence my comment. I apologize for my error.
Click to expand...

AppleScruff, no significant offense taken. Maybe I simply misunderstood.

Anyway, I am aware that the i5 us faster than the C2D but I'm not sure how that translates to the real world with what I'm trying to do with the machine. I wanted the MBA but just am not sure how the less powerful C2D would perform with what I'm asking the machine to do.
 
Aspen said:
AppleScruff, no significant offense taken. Maybe I simply misunderstood.

Anyway, I am aware that the i5 us faster than the C2D but I'm not sure how that translates to the real world with what I'm trying to do with the machine. I wanted the MBA but just am not sure how the less powerful C2D would perform with what I'm asking the machine to do.
Click to expand...

I meant no offense at all. Poor wording on my part in my initial post.
 
Aspen said:
AppleScruff, no significant offense taken. Maybe I simply misunderstood.

Anyway, I am aware that the i5 us faster than the C2D but I'm not sure how that translates to the real world with what I'm trying to do with the machine. I wanted the MBA but just am not sure how the less powerful C2D would perform with what I'm asking the machine to do.
Click to expand...

Unless your playing games or doing high defintion video editing a C2D should be fine, you could probably even do HD video editing on a MBA. And when i mean HD i mean rly HD with logic etc :)
 
Also take in mind that the 2011 chips get way hotter than the Core2Duo chips in the 2010 MBP/MBA
(important if you have the laptop on your lap most of the time)
 
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20031434-64.html

I have no idea what they upgrades will be other than an updated processor (sandy bridge). Maybe they'll surprise us and fit thunderbolt in the MBAs? Either way, I had a Core 2 Duo 2.2GHZ in my 2006 low-end Macbook. It's an old processor, it runs well and it will get things done, especially with your requirements - but why not futureproof a little more? What is a couple of months?
 
DarkFlame said:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20031434-64.html

I have no idea what they upgrades will be other than an updated processor (sandy bridge). Maybe they'll surprise us and fit thunderbolt in the MBAs? Either way, I had a Core 2 Duo 2.2GHZ in my 2006 low-end Macbook. It's an old processor, it runs well and it will get things done, especially with your requirements - but why not futureproof a little more? What is a couple of months?
Click to expand...

The 2006 lowend macbook had 1.83 Ghz C2D, the highend macbook had 2.0.
The Late 2009 Macbook (introduced 20th of Oct 2009) was the first lowend macbook to reach 2.2 GHz. (you could get a BTO white MB or the Blackbook with 2.2 GHz for $1500 late 2007, but that is hardly the "Lowend" version of the MB)

My own machine is a i5 MBP, but I do also use a Macbook (Alu version, late 2008) with a 2.0GHz C2D a lot, and to be honest, things like surfing, checking mail, iTunes etc, there is hardly no difference in speed.

But if you can wait there will most likely be a mba update in a few months
 
cluthz said:
The 2006 lowend macbook had 1.83 Ghz C2D, the highend macbook had 2.0.
The Late 2009 Macbook (introduced 20th of Oct 2009) was the first lowend macbook to reach 2.2 GHz. (you could get a BTO white MB or the Blackbook with 2.2 GHz for $1500 late 2007, but that is hardly the "Lowend" version of the MB)

My own machine is a i5 MBP, but I do also use a Macbook (Alu version, late 2008) with a 2.0GHz C2D a lot, and to be honest, things like surfing, checking mail, iTunes etc, there is hardly no difference in speed.

But if you can wait there will most likely be a mba update in a few months
Click to expand...

Yes, I stand corrected. It was the high-end macbook in 2007. 4 years ago...
 
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