Not worth the money? It's excellent value to me.
I didn't even look at the price when I bought it. It was what I needed. Time is money; faster means more money can be made.
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.
Why Did You choose 13 Inch MBP?
- Thread starter macNewbie02
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not worth the money? It's excellent value to me.
I didn't even look at the price when I bought it. It was what I needed. Time is money; faster means more money can be made.
I agree. I use it as a desktop just add a monitor and your good to go. It will do most heavy processing fast enough for most people. If you don't game it is very good. Gaming not so much.
Went from a 13 to a 15 ...
The 13 is obviously more portable (smaller/lighter, a little more "lap friendly"), but less powerful and has less screen real estate. Since I normally use my MBP as a desktop substitute while away from home (and thus do not have an external monitor available) to do photo processing (and need/want the performance bump) and do not carry it around for long periods of time (it doesn't live in my camera bag), the 15" was the right choice for me.
If I primarily wanted something to carry every day to use "on the go" and either used a desktop or hooked the laptop to a larger external monitor at "home", then the 13" probably makes more sense. While the quad core 15" is certainly more powerful, the SB i5/i7 dual cores in the 13" are likely enough for most uses.
The other wild card is the GPU in the 15". If you play modern 3D games or run a pro app that makes extensive use the GPU, then the 15" will have an even larger performance boost (at the expense of battery life).
The 13 is obviously more portable (smaller/lighter, a little more "lap friendly"), but less powerful and has less screen real estate. Since I normally use my MBP as a desktop substitute while away from home (and thus do not have an external monitor available) to do photo processing (and need/want the performance bump) and do not carry it around for long periods of time (it doesn't live in my camera bag), the 15" was the right choice for me.
If I primarily wanted something to carry every day to use "on the go" and either used a desktop or hooked the laptop to a larger external monitor at "home", then the 13" probably makes more sense. While the quad core 15" is certainly more powerful, the SB i5/i7 dual cores in the 13" are likely enough for most uses.
The other wild card is the GPU in the 15". If you play modern 3D games or run a pro app that makes extensive use the GPU, then the 15" will have an even larger performance boost (at the expense of battery life).
I chose it because I was also getting a 27" iMac so I didn't need all of the power or screen size behind it, just the portability.
I always saw the 13" MBP as the ugly duckling of the the pro line. My old 2009 white macbook was actually faster than the equivalent 13" macbook pro at the time.
The 15"/17" are in a different league compared to the 13".
- no quad core
- crap integrated graphics
- no matte option
- Low 1280x800 resolution - doesn't even meet Adobe's minimum resolution requirements!
Performance difference depending on what you are doing can be huge. For example encoding a video in handbrake can be over twice as fast. Games are actually playable at decent settings. Performance in After Effects is just in a different world on a quad-core i7. Adobe Premiere is now supporting GPU acceleration for the AMD mobile chips so editing performance will be at least 5 times faster and no need to render effects as it is all done realtime on the gpu.
I dunno the 13" just seems like a really bad investment. You get none of the benefits of getting a "Pro" model, and you get none of the portability benefits of the "Air" models.
The 15"/17" are in a different league compared to the 13".
- no quad core
- crap integrated graphics
- no matte option
- Low 1280x800 resolution - doesn't even meet Adobe's minimum resolution requirements!
Performance difference depending on what you are doing can be huge. For example encoding a video in handbrake can be over twice as fast. Games are actually playable at decent settings. Performance in After Effects is just in a different world on a quad-core i7. Adobe Premiere is now supporting GPU acceleration for the AMD mobile chips so editing performance will be at least 5 times faster and no need to render effects as it is all done realtime on the gpu.
I dunno the 13" just seems like a really bad investment. You get none of the benefits of getting a "Pro" model, and you get none of the portability benefits of the "Air" models.
I got the 13-inch because of the portability. It was to replace my Sony VAIO 13" SZ series.
However, my main gripe is Apple inability to add in discreet graphics in the 13" because my VAIO had both an integrated (Intel) as well as a nVIDIA discreet GPU. I will be getting the 15-inch if Apple cannot put a discreet GPU in the 13". If the 13" also got a discreet GPU, then I'll have the 13" in my purchase decision.
However, my main gripe is Apple inability to add in discreet graphics in the 13" because my VAIO had both an integrated (Intel) as well as a nVIDIA discreet GPU. I will be getting the 15-inch if Apple cannot put a discreet GPU in the 13". If the 13" also got a discreet GPU, then I'll have the 13" in my purchase decision.
Perceived value is subjective. Zero performance increase in everyday tasks is worth $0 to me. If I was encoding video or crunching numbers for a living, then yes, the $600 difference may be worth it, but that's not what I use my laptop for. Then again, who would buy a laptop for these things anyway?
Seriously no pro benefits and no benefits over the Air?? How about:
- Faster processor options
- Much larger RAM capacity and user upgradable - Up to 16gb RAM (Air is 4gb max).
- Much larger Storage capacity and user upgradable - to 1tb of storage or even more with optibay. (256gb SSD max on Air)
- Firewire
- Security Slot
- Optical Drive (or additional bay for another drive if preferred).
- GB Ethernet
- Higher quality although lower resolution screen
You can add as many ports, ram, ssd as you want, doesn't change the fact that the peformance is hardly any better than a MBA. If you want real power you go 15"/17" end of.
for me is was form factor. I do wish it had higher ppi and discrete gpu but those are the tradeoffs. love my 13
You invest in portability, higher res screen, and a (small) fast SSD in an Air. For around the same price, you can get a faster processor, larger storage, extra ports, larger battery and upgradeability in the 13 Pro. It's entirely down to what you require in a laptop - there is no one-size-fits-all, and both have their USPs. The 15 and 17 inch are hugely different pricepoints and may be out of league.
No the 13" MBP isn't as powerful as the 15/17", but it is MUCH more expandable and IS faster than the MBA. Try running 2 to 4 different VM environments at the same time on a MBA with 4gb (its max) and let me know how that goes for you... On the 13" MBP (which I have at 16gb) it runs fantastically. CPU isn't the only factor on how fast a machine runs certain applications.
I thought the 13" was the best compromise in terms of size, power, and cost. I still think the 13" is the best overall value for your money (assuming you don't need the additional power from its bigger brothers). I'm pretty happy with it, and I'm looking forward to their 2012 revisions...assuming there is a 2012 13" MBP.
I wish the resolution were slightly higher though, the battery life a little better, and that, well, it had a better gpu...but I could live without the third one.
I wish the resolution were slightly higher though, the battery life a little better, and that, well, it had a better gpu...but I could live without the third one.
The 13'' was perfect for my needs which aren't intensive at all. Upgraded to 8GB of RAM for extra performance however.
Would have loved a 15'' but couldn't justify spending that much money plus I didn't actually have that money to spend.
Would have loved a 15'' but couldn't justify spending that much money plus I didn't actually have that money to spend.
coming from white macbook. needed more power.
need small and portable for live gigs,
and it's still a very comfy home-studio workstation with a big screen attached.
Powerful enough with a lot of headroom for my needs, and for a lot of average needs. SSD+HDD config for speed and space.
only times it feels constraint is when you need more screen real estate to work on the go. But I do most of the work at home, and usually don't use the screen at all live (hide it under a stand, press power, power on live and max/msp, shut down the contrast, play.)
wouldn't trade it for a 15".
And if I had to choose between retina with the same visible real estate and a slighty bigger resolution, would choose the slighty bigger resolution. will look out for what option offer with this retina trend. with no firewire it's a no deal for the few years coming anyway.
need small and portable for live gigs,
and it's still a very comfy home-studio workstation with a big screen attached.
Powerful enough with a lot of headroom for my needs, and for a lot of average needs. SSD+HDD config for speed and space.
only times it feels constraint is when you need more screen real estate to work on the go. But I do most of the work at home, and usually don't use the screen at all live (hide it under a stand, press power, power on live and max/msp, shut down the contrast, play.)
wouldn't trade it for a 15".
And if I had to choose between retina with the same visible real estate and a slighty bigger resolution, would choose the slighty bigger resolution. will look out for what option offer with this retina trend. with no firewire it's a no deal for the few years coming anyway.
Own both, like the 13" better size wise for traveling, especially on planes.
If they bring out a new 13" that's thinner with even better battery life and a nicer high-res (retina whatever lol) screen with anti-glare I'm game. They'll sell a ton, I hate how they force you to upgrade to the 15 or 17 for high res anti-glare (which I have on the 15).
Had an Air and didn't like it, yeh it was lighter etc, but battery didn't last as long, and it was not fond at all of multitasking or running Win7 parallel to OS/X vs the 13" Pro. If the 13" Pro is left out again this time, guess I'll have to see what Apple has up it's sleeve for the new 13" Air line.
If they bring out a new 13" that's thinner with even better battery life and a nicer high-res (retina whatever lol) screen with anti-glare I'm game. They'll sell a ton, I hate how they force you to upgrade to the 15 or 17 for high res anti-glare (which I have on the 15).
Had an Air and didn't like it, yeh it was lighter etc, but battery didn't last as long, and it was not fond at all of multitasking or running Win7 parallel to OS/X vs the 13" Pro. If the 13" Pro is left out again this time, guess I'll have to see what Apple has up it's sleeve for the new 13" Air line.
I wasn't saying that Apple doesn't include the 15-inch's options in the 13-inch because they don't want to. Of course it's due to form factor (besides the display). I'm just saying that the 13-inch MacBook Pro isn't a professional machine like the 15-inch is because it lacks many features.
Yes, the 2.8 GHz 13-inch MacBook Pro has a slightly faster (about 15%) processor than my 15-inch MacBook Pro. That doesn't make me mad because barely anybody buying a 13" MacBook Pro spends the extra money on the processor upgrade from 2.4 GHz to 2.8 GHz.
- 25% is only 1.1 pounds. I'd say that's pretty minor.
- 1680x1050 15.4" display is 128 PPI > 1280x800 13.3" display is 113 PPI.
- Base 15" late 2011 has a Geekbench score of 10199. Base 13" late 2011 has a Geekbench score of 6658. 6658/10199=0.65. That's 35% lower, not 15%-20%.
- I stand corrected on the 3.5 mm mic port.
- One fan may mean less noise, but it means less effective cooling.
- The 13" has no speaker grill. It's speakers are mounted near the screen's hinge.
I chose the 13 because it was perfect for me. I looked hard at my computing needs and realized that I didn't need a quad core, my dual core i7 works fine for me. I also love the form factor of the 13 its perfect for portability and power. Plus after upgraded the internals I am able to run photoshop, aperture and final cut pro without so much as a hiccup.
25% is 25%
You're comparing the upgraded screen, add an extra $100 to the price, making the computer over 50% more than a 13".
Again, 35% CPU boost that offers 0% noticeable performance increase in everyday tasks.
One fan because less cooling is needed, the CPU doesn't use as much power, therefore doesn't get as hot.
The 13" does have a small speaker hole, look to the left of the screen hinge.
I stand by my earlier claims, the 15" costs too much for what it offers. If you need a Mac and you need its features, then you have no choice.
Because a portable computer should be portable. The pros and cons of the 15" just didn't fit for me where the 13" fit the bill. Powerful enough to do what I needed and still small enough to carry around as needed.
One thing I've noticed about larger portable computers is that they tend to just sit on desks for their entire lives..that makes no sense to me. If I wanted something big that would more or less stay in one spot I would have purchased an iMac.
13" MacBook Pro, the sweetspot.
One thing I've noticed about larger portable computers is that they tend to just sit on desks for their entire lives..that makes no sense to me. If I wanted something big that would more or less stay in one spot I would have purchased an iMac.
13" MacBook Pro, the sweetspot.
Got the 13" because it's smaller and seems to have just about the same amount of power (at least enough to suit all of my needs).
I had a 16" PC Laptop and got tired of lugging it around to classes. 15" was too close to that size. I considered a 11" MBA but the MPB 13" offered the perfect balance of portability and power.
I had a 16" PC Laptop and got tired of lugging it around to classes. 15" was too close to that size. I considered a 11" MBA but the MPB 13" offered the perfect balance of portability and power.
Well...
- no thermal headroom for 4 core
- no thermal headroom or space for discrete GPU - integrated GPU same as an MBA - if you need high end 3d (many don't) you need to go bigger. this isn't a specific MBP 13 problem, it's a laws of physics vs GPU technology problem
- no matte is an issue for some, yes
- 1280x800 is far preferable to 1366x768, imho. if you're using adobe graphical software on the go then yes, a 13" is probably not for you.
the 15" and 17" are heavier, more expensive and less portable.
the 13" MBA is marginally more portable but a lot less expandable, and slower.