why the new 13" macbook pro is a no buy

[Yebubbleman]

that's why

Intel HD 3000 blows and is a step backward from the NVIDIA GeForce 320M that the Mid-2010 13" MacBook Pro used. But this isn't new news.

And the big issue is what, exactly?

Inferior Intel graphics (i.e. Don't buy the Early 2011 [Current] 13" MacBook Pro if you want a machine with good graphics.

Only affects 13" mbp with integrated gpu.

Read the title of the post before saying things like that.

And...?

Inferior graphics for a machine costing anywhere from $1200 to $1500. I don't know about you guys, but that is a lot of money to spend on a computer with crap graphics. The same thing on an equivalent (and probably Hackintoshable) laptop would run you $600-$850.

That's what I was trying to figure out.

Give me a "G". Give me an "R". Give me an "A". Give me a "P". Give me an "H". I hope you get the picture by now.

I think he is looking for a thank you from everyone on the board who ever might have though about buying a 13 inch mbp for saving them from buying it.

I think it's more of a generalized complaint. Though true facts: Apple charges way too much for the hardware and save for a few cool feats of engineering, the only thing that sets it apart is the ease of running Mac OS X.

The 13" isn't just about watching movies!

No, but it is a pretty expensive word processor and internet computer.

Would this actually be noticeable to the average person? Especially on a 13" screen? I'm doubtful.

Games and high-end video editing/tasks are things for which this will be annoying. For everything else, it's a non-issue.

Um, I watched a movie the other day and it was fine.
I happen to lurve this 13" Macbook Pro.

Good for you.

Well I happen to love my new MBP, but thanks for trying to rain on my parade.

Way to make it needlessly personal, bro.

I'm with you. On any internet product forum there's always going to be one that finds some absolutely inane reason for justifying not purchasing something and the OP is ours

Do your research, though you might not use the extra muscle that a computer with better graphics might afford you, the 13" Pro is a rip-off if you examine other computers on the market with its exact specs. You could get a machine comparable to the current higher-end 13" Pro for easily $300 less than the cost of the current low-end 13" Pro.

Sure bud. An on-core gpu on a Sandy Bridge processor is so couple of months ago.

The graphics capability barely matches the GeForce 320M found on last generation 13" MacBook Pro, both of which were introduced almost a year ago. We're getting worse-than-last-year's graphics today. So yeah, Sandy Bridge is only two months old, but that kind of performance on an integrated graphics processor is nothing bleeding edge, unless we're congratulating Intel on even getting this far.

 

[SirStrumalot]

Intel HD 3000 blows and is a step backward from the NVIDIA GeForce 320M that the Mid-2010 13" MacBook Pro used. But this isn't new news.



Inferior Intel graphics (i.e. Don't buy the Early 2011 [Current] 13" MacBook Pro if you want a machine with good graphics.



Read the title of the post before saying things like that.



Inferior graphics for a machine costing anywhere from $1200 to $1500. I don't know about you guys, but that is a lot of money to spend on a computer with crap graphics. The same thing on an equivalent (and probably Hackintoshable) laptop would run you $600-$850.



Give me a "G". Give me an "R". Give me an "A". Give me a "P". Give me an "H". I hope you get the picture by now.



I think it's more of a generalized complaint. Though true facts: Apple charges way too much for the hardware and save for a few cool feats of engineering, the only thing that sets it apart is the ease of running Mac OS X.



No, but it is a pretty expensive word processor and internet computer.



Games and high-end video editing/tasks are things for which this will be annoying. For everything else, it's a non-issue.



Good for you.



Way to make it needlessly personal, bro.



Do your research, though you might not use the extra muscle that a computer with better graphics might afford you, the 13" Pro is a rip-off if you examine other computers on the market with its exact specs. You could get a machine comparable to the current higher-end 13" Pro for easily $300 less than the cost of the current low-end 13" Pro.



The graphics capability barely matches the GeForce 320M found on last generation 13" MacBook Pro, both of which were introduced almost a year ago. We're getting worse-than-last-year's graphics today. So yeah, Sandy Bridge is only two months old, but that kind of performance on an integrated graphics processor is nothing bleeding edge, unless we're congratulating Intel on even getting this far.

Your point about being able to get a machine with similar specs for $850 or whatever are essentially moot because this WILL always and HAS always been the case. I can always find a PC with much better specs for much cheaper. There is a reason people opt for Macs and it isn't just the raw spec sheet.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Your point about being able to get a machine with similar specs for $850 or whatever are essentially moot because this WILL always and HAS always been the case. I can always find a PC with much better specs for much cheaper. There is a reason people opt for Macs and it isn't just the raw spec sheet.

Look, as a Mac user, I recognize that I'll always be paying more for the same hardware with an Apple logo and the ability to run Mac OS X without Hackintosh-style tweaking. However, for what you are paying for and what you are getting, you are getting ripped off by the 13" Pro far more than any other Mac. It has been like this since the damn thing was first branded as "13" MacBook Pro" at WWDC 2009. It is their best seller and their biggest rip-off to customers buying it. A 15" MacBook Pro, for what they offer, is a much better buy for the money they cost.

 

[LadyK8]

So what are the other laptops with similar specs that cost less? Curious question, since I haven't purchased my MBP yet.

 

[SirStrumalot]

Look, as a Mac user, I recognize that I'll always be paying more for the same hardware with an Apple logo and the ability to run Mac OS X without Hackintosh-style tweaking. However, for what you are paying for and what you are getting, you are getting ripped off by the 13" Pro far more than any other Mac. It has been like this since the damn thing was first branded as "13" MacBook Pro" at WWDC 2009. It is their best seller and their biggest rip-off to customers buying it. A 15" MacBook Pro, for what they offer, is a much better buy for the money they cost.

And I agree with you to some extent; I see where you're coming from. Unfortunately though, if analyzed, any Mac can be seen as a rip off with similarly spec'd machines. That being said, I agree with you that Apple really needs to step up their game with the 13 inchers... I cannot understand why they couldn't at the very least upgrade the resolution to match the MBA.

 

[Apple OC]

it should also work like a Roomba.

But no ... I put it on the floor and it just sits there ... well at least we can watch movies on it.

 

[63dot]

While the issue is not ideal, I don't see it bothering me that much. Of course, I would liked not to have that be an issue, but this one thing would not stop me from buying an otherwise stellar machine. Think of the price and what else you get. I still like the MBP and while it's really good, when Intel solves this issue, it will be an excellent machine.

As for watching movies on a computer, nah, it's just not as comfy as the couch and TV. Also when I watch movies, I like to switch directly to TV channel surfing and the whole idea is to relax. Somehow, maybe it's do to work and/or school, but just being in front of any computer just feels like work to me and it's not fun for me to unwind in front of ANY computer.

If I want to unwind and really relax in this increasingly stressful world, that's why Apple made the iPod. Besides TV, exercise, and window shopping, and listening to music, viewing a computer is not high on my list of relaxing activities I want to do, especially watch a movie.

So while it would be nice to have Intel fix the Sandy Bridge issue and give me some piece of mind, I wouldn't really notice since I don't and can't ever picture myself watching movies on a Mac (or any computer). And if this affects gaming, I don't care either since I never got that good.

 

[Yebubbleman]

So what are the other laptops with similar specs that cost less? Curious question, since I haven't purchased my MBP yet.

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/bl...th-intels-sandy-bridge-chips-arrive/?cs=45891

And I agree with you to some extent; I see where you're coming from. Unfortunately though, if analyzed, any Mac can be seen as a rip off with similarly spec'd machines. That being said, I agree with you that Apple really needs to step up their game with the 13 inchers... I cannot understand why they couldn't at the very least upgrade the resolution to match the MBA.

Oh sure, Apple hardware is all overpriced compared to similarly spec'd things, but some are way more than others. The 15" Pro, especially the higher-end one, has never been a better buy than it is this generation. The 13" Pro has never been a worse buy than it is this generation. So it goes. Thank you Intel for cock-blocking NVIDIA.

 

[LadyK8]

Hmmm. I may have to rethink my purchase. That Sony Vaio S looks amazing, and it's cheaper.

 

[skier777]

macbook pro(big Plex fan myself) + large tv screen + good speakers with an amp =awesome home cinema

I would have though a PS3 (or even any $100 blu ray player) + large tv screen + good speakers with an amp = far better home cinema

 

[phonk]

I use my mbp as media center all the time. just plugin my 46" screen and start vlc/xbmc (not a big fan of the new plex without direct file access).
I never was in for a 13" (15" is the way to go) but I can see that this is an issue for some. It's the small details which can annoy you. Like the bad headphone line-out on my 08 mbp or the fact that my 500$ apogee duet hisses when a external monitor is plugged in (which is because of the logicboard/firewire/dvi-ports).

 

[Ccrew]

Hmmm. I may have to rethink my purchase. That Sony Vaio S looks amazing, and it's cheaper.

And it'll be worthless in a year. As much as you can hammer Apple on the cost at least they have a resale.

The whiners here are the gamers and people that want to play video. Apple has always sucked as a game platform and if you want to watch videos you can get by with much less than an Apple. There are people like me that use it for a lot of things, like remote admin of servers I manage, business documents, mail, and being able to connect from anywhere that make it fine as a platform.

Not good for some people doesn't mean not good at all.

 

[LadyK8]

Thanks for your input. I'm still planning on getting an MBP.

 

[SPEEDwithJJ]

Interesting link. Thanks OP for the info. Appreciate that.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Hmmm. I may have to rethink my purchase. That Sony Vaio S looks amazing, and it's cheaper.

I'm not saying that the 13" MBP is a bad computer. For a lot of people, I'm sure it's sufficient. I'm saying that if you are to buy a Mac, it is the worst bang for buck. If you buy a Sony, you brave their crappy tech support and are stuck with Windows. But if you wanted to solely run Windows a Mac wouldn't be your best value anyway.

And it'll be worthless in a year. As much as you can hammer Apple on the cost at least they have a resale.

The whiners here are the gamers and people that want to play video. Apple has always sucked as a game platform and if you want to watch videos you can get by with much less than an Apple. There are people like me that use it for a lot of things, like remote admin of servers I manage, business documents, mail, and being able to connect from anywhere that make it fine as a platform.

Not good for some people doesn't mean not good at all.

Again, I'm not saying it's a bad computer. I'm saying that as far as the Mac line-up is concerned, it is the worst bang for buck given what it has inside. Furthermore, my complaint, and probably the complaint of the OP as well is that while the CPU is unarguably one hell of an upgrade from the previous 13" MacBook Pro models, the IGP is a step backward. It's a deterrent for me as someone who does light gaming on the Mac and occasional video editing, but more than that, I hate the idea of buying a computer that is, in some ways, worse than its predecessor. That's not how new computers should be. This is exactly why I'm not going to be buying a lower-end 15" MacBook Pro as the Radeon HD 6490M is slower than the GeForce GT 330M that it replaced in the same-costing machine in last refresh's line-up. Will it perform fine, sure. However, if I'm spending over $1,000 for a computer, let alone a Mac, let alone a MacBook Pro, it better not be inferior in anyway to the model that came before it, because for that price, why should it have to be?

 

[bigjobby]

Hmmm. I may have to rethink my purchase. That Sony Vaio S looks amazing, and it's cheaper.

People can bang on about spec comparisons etc etc until you're blue in the face but I had a trackpad problem a couple of months back and the Genius at my local Apple store had it replaced in 5mins. Now how good is that?... Absolutely awesome I'd say!

 

[eaf7s]

I'm returning mine immediately. I can't believe I loved every aspect of this machine before you opened my eyes to this!!!!!

 

[LadyK8]

People can bang on about spec comparisons etc etc until you're blue in the face but I had a trackpad problem a couple of months back and the Genius at my local Apple store had it replaced in 5mins. Now how good is that?... Absolutely awesome I'd say!

Thanks for your input! I ordered mine last night.

 

[DustinT]

Lets not forget that this 'issue' can be fixed with a drive update from Intel.

 

[falcor87]

96% of people will never see this judder and will not care.
2% of people will see this judder once and still not care.
1% of people will see this judder once and cry about about how there movie watching lives are ruined forever.
1% of people will never see this judder but every 40 seconds insist they see the judder every time. They will then cry about how there movie watching lives are ruined forever.

2% of people should buy a different computer... Or a media streamer?

 

[robd54]

I just posted another thread about seeing a jitter/judder/stutter (whatever you want to call it) when playing .MTS files from my HD camcorder. I'm not sure what framerate they were recorded at but it was VERY noticeable. Is what I'm seeing related to this thread? Was playing the .mts through mplayer. Playing .MOV files (same resolution) from my 7D through quicktime showed no such issue.

 

[Brettla]

Give me a "G". Give me an "R". Give me an "A". Give me a "P". Give me an "H". I hope you get the picture by now.

When all the OP does is Post its a no buy, then puts a link to a general article about a chip issue, and isn't getting into anything specificly about the MBP. He makes a huge deal out of it and I don't think anyone here has posted that they have seen this happen. From other threads I have seen here if someone starts something like this it is about something specific to the system, it would be like someone posting don't buy anything with the sandy bridge cpu's because there were a few with issues so clearly yours will break, no one here has posted that it has happened so if it becomes a big known problem, ok thanks for the info, if not it was an interesting topic.

 

[zer0sum]

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/bl...th-intels-sandy-bridge-chips-arrive/?cs=45891

Oh sure, Apple hardware is all overpriced compared to similarly spec'd things, but some are way more than others. The 15" Pro, especially the higher-end one, has never been a better buy than it is this generation. The 13" Pro has never been a worse buy than it is this generation. So it goes. Thank you Intel for cock-blocking NVIDIA.

Ok...lets break this down for some reality

MBP 13"
$1199
13.3" screen
1280x800 - that extra 32 pixels is very important to some of us
Intel HD3000 GPU (3dmark06 = 4500+)
max 16gb ram
Thunderbolt!!
Optical drive that is easily swapped for second hdd
HD webcam
trackpad is yet to be matched
12.8" x 8.9" x 0.95"
4.5lbs (2.04kg)
small power brick
magsafe
8.5 hours battery as tested by laptopmag

Lenovo X220
$979 base, but not if you want USB3 etc
12.5" screen (option for IPS screen is good)
1366x768
Intel HD3000 GPU (3dmark06 = 3494)
max 8gb ram
Express card is nice - DIY Vidock
USB3 only available on i7-2620m model
No optical drive
fingerprint reader
3.6lbs with 6-cell battery
4.875lbs with external battery slice
12 "x 9.1" x 0.5-1.5"
Can do wimax/wwan
no backlit keyboards
external "sheet/slice" battery adds 1" thickness and 1.6lbs
8 hours battery as tested by laptopmag

Sony Vaio S
$969 base with i5-2410M and ATI 6470M (3dmark06 = 4336)
13.3" screen
1366x768
HD6630M GPU but you have to upgrade to i7-2620m = $1269
USB3
hdmi and no display port
Optical drive - swap out for hdd?
backlit keyboard
13" x 8.8" x 0.95"
3.8lbs - standard battery
5lbs - extended battery
Intel wireless display
~7 hours battery life at optimal settings

 

[leman]

As far as I understand it, this is a complete non-issue for absolute majority of the users. The MBP display is at constant 60Hz refresh rate so it will clip that fraction of the frame anyway, no matter at which frequency it is being fed by the GPU. The same is true for most other displays out there. Only the few people who use their MBP to watch movies on an external TV supporting the particular refresh rates would notice a difference.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[ender land]

. Sure I spend 8+ hours a day on it *coding*, but movies are TOTALLY the most important part!

Hey me too!

I figure I probably watch one movie on here to every month worth of coding I do. Probably less.

I feel so jipped by Apple :'(

I guess I'll just go downstairs to my home theater system and watch it with decent speakers/surround/screen size instead of my crappy speakers on a laptop and 13.3".