It is
If you don't care too much for portability, the 17" sure is a great machine. The speakers sound really good (for laptop speakers) btw. If you're traveling a lot (plane, buses, subway etc.), I'd recommend the 15", though.
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.
With the huge difference in GPUs for the low/high end 15, is this the year of the 17?
- Thread starter Bobby Corwen
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is
If you don't care too much for portability, the 17" sure is a great machine. The speakers sound really good (for laptop speakers) btw. If you're traveling a lot (plane, buses, subway etc.), I'd recommend the 15", though.
I'm in the same boat as you. Ordered a 17" a couple of days ago. Tired of the lowres 13", and since upgrading to highres matte on the 15" the extra cost for the 17" is rather small. With edu discount I got it for a nice price.
The only downside I can think about now is in the portability department. I never bring nor need my mac on a plane so thats not an issue for me. Getting a sleeve is easy, and it will fit in my daily-use backpack easily. I need a movable, not a superportable machine, so getting the 15 for a little less money didn't make sense to me.
As for the highres 17" screen being a bad thing - go check it out for yourself in the store, then you'll know.
The only downside I can think about now is in the portability department. I never bring nor need my mac on a plane so thats not an issue for me. Getting a sleeve is easy, and it will fit in my daily-use backpack easily. I need a movable, not a superportable machine, so getting the 15 for a little less money didn't make sense to me.
As for the highres 17" screen being a bad thing - go check it out for yourself in the store, then you'll know.
Last edited:
It is
If you don't care too much for portability, the 17" sure is a great machine. The speakers sound really good (for laptop speakers) btw. If you're traveling a lot (plane, buses, subway etc.), I'd recommend the 15", though.
Ah yess... the speakers. I happen to play music just from the speakers a lot and I use it as kind of a YouTube stereo system for my room. I notice I do that a lot!
So I read before that the speakers on the 17 are the other positive superior thing compared to the 15. People have commented that they prefer watching movies with the speakers from the 17 and that it sounds great. Even better than the 15 supposedly. Makes sense to me...
15-in has the SDXC slot, which is infinitely more useful to me than the ExpressCard slot in the 17-in. No idea why they would do that to the 17-in.
I don't use either one. If I were to, in some rare situation, need to transfer data that for some random reason I can't email to myself, I use a USB stick. Because who doesnt have a USB port? But not necessarily everyone/everything has an SD card slot and of course my iPhone doesnt use them so... Everything is email or USB stick anyways. I have no SD devices.
While my experience is not with the current 2011 MBPs I figure it wouldn't hurt to give my thoughts on the 17".
Back in 2009 when I bought mine I went with the 17" purely because it offered the same resolution as my iMac. I didn't mind the smaller pixel size, as I was getting my entire desktop, pixel-for-pixel, on a device I could carry around with me.
Carrying it everyday for four months was not a chore.
If the difference between carrying a 15" and a 17" causes you that much grief, sadly it is not the laptop at fault. You should wear your bag properly. 3kg is not a heavy weight at all, when worn correctly.
I am now considering upgrading my 17" and am torn between the 15" and 17".
My current MacBook Pro has become my primary computer and as such it does not really matter what the screen res is due to my external monitor.
I am also no longer in the situation that requires me to carry the device.
I wouldn't mind a smaller MBP as it would warrant less desk space, but I am of the belief that it will dissipate heat to a lesser degree than a 17".
I hope that some of this helps you.
Fianlly, finding a bag big enough was a pain in the a**. The average rucksack does not fit it very well. Having said that, I never stumped for one, Knomo make some very high quality laptop satchels. Expensive but very good.
Back in 2009 when I bought mine I went with the 17" purely because it offered the same resolution as my iMac. I didn't mind the smaller pixel size, as I was getting my entire desktop, pixel-for-pixel, on a device I could carry around with me.
Carrying it everyday for four months was not a chore.
If the difference between carrying a 15" and a 17" causes you that much grief, sadly it is not the laptop at fault. You should wear your bag properly. 3kg is not a heavy weight at all, when worn correctly.
I am now considering upgrading my 17" and am torn between the 15" and 17".
My current MacBook Pro has become my primary computer and as such it does not really matter what the screen res is due to my external monitor.
I am also no longer in the situation that requires me to carry the device.
I wouldn't mind a smaller MBP as it would warrant less desk space, but I am of the belief that it will dissipate heat to a lesser degree than a 17".
I hope that some of this helps you.
Fianlly, finding a bag big enough was a pain in the a**. The average rucksack does not fit it very well. Having said that, I never stumped for one, Knomo make some very high quality laptop satchels. Expensive but very good.
The 15.4 inch at 1680x1050 resolution has a PPI of 128.65 (about 16550 pixels per square inch)
The 17 inch at 1920x1080 resolution has a PPI of about 126.35 (15965 pixels per square inch)
Even though the 17 has a higher resolution, it's the 15 that has slightly greater pixel density and would be marginally harder on the eyes. The screen area of the 17 is about 130 square inches compared to about 105 square inches on the 15. That 24% increase in screen size more than compensates for the 18% increase in pixels.
This is for those undecided between the two models. The 17 is actually slightly easier on the eyes than the hi res 15 in terms of having slightly larger pixels. With the 17, you get more res, more screen real estate per pixel, more ports, but, alas... more weight to carry around.
The 17 inch at 1920x1080 resolution has a PPI of about 126.35 (15965 pixels per square inch)
Even though the 17 has a higher resolution, it's the 15 that has slightly greater pixel density and would be marginally harder on the eyes. The screen area of the 17 is about 130 square inches compared to about 105 square inches on the 15. That 24% increase in screen size more than compensates for the 18% increase in pixels.
This is for those undecided between the two models. The 17 is actually slightly easier on the eyes than the hi res 15 in terms of having slightly larger pixels. With the 17, you get more res, more screen real estate per pixel, more ports, but, alas... more weight to carry around.
Great maths except that the 17" MBP has a resolution of 1920x1200 which is around 133 ppi.
Here's the calculation 14.42" × 9.01" (36.62cm × 22.89cm) = 133.19 PPI, 0.1907mm dot pitch, 17738 PPI² from clicky
Oops, thanks for pointing this out. I had a mental glitch I guess and thought the 17 inch was 16:9, but thankfully Apple hasn't done that to us (yet).
Yes, 133 PPI for the 17, as you say. So scratch what I said about the PPI being lower for the 17. It's slightly higher. The extra real estate doesn't quite make up for the extra pixels compared to the 15, but it's close. Eye strain should be about the same.
Cheers.
Uhm, it's called a "laptop" for a reason. I say they make a 40" laptop, tell me how that feels on your lap...
The higher resolution is a killer for gaming, lowers your frame rates. The hi-res display is a bit on the extreme side, so eye strain could be a factor with the super small menu text, etc. The lid maximum opening angle of the LCD is really far too vertical on the 17". The 17" is a real clunker of a form factor.
Welpppp.
Since nobody gave me compelling enough reasons to not go with the 17..
IM BUYING it tonight!
Ahhhh Ableton on a 1920x1200 resolution 17..
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAA!!
Since nobody gave me compelling enough reasons to not go with the 17..
IM BUYING it tonight!
Ahhhh Ableton on a 1920x1200 resolution 17..
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAA!!
cool...all the best.
was checking one out yesterday and they are really sweet machines.
Thanks bro!
I've never actually ever had a 17 inch anything before! I'm excited!
BEst. Addiction. Ever!
It's infinitely more useful when you can just get a $29 expresscard 8-1 reader?
Also, mobile workstation - expresscard modem?
The expresscard should never have been ditched for sd in the 15 imo.
imho i would go with high end 15" hr ag
you get the power of the 17" as well as better performance in gaming because of a lower resolution yet all while STILL maintaining a higher DPI then the 17"
BAM.
I don't have a MBP but I've been keeping up with developments for many years now. I plan to get a 15" hr ag base model this week.
you get the power of the 17" as well as better performance in gaming because of a lower resolution yet all while STILL maintaining a higher DPI then the 17"
BAM.
I don't have a MBP but I've been keeping up with developments for many years now. I plan to get a 15" hr ag base model this week.
http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2011/02/macbookpro-benchmarks-early-2011/
Reference gaming on the higher res 17" being not as fast due to the res. Compared to the 15" with the same graphics card.
If you look at the geek bench results published in another topic in this forum it would seem that the 17" is getting better results than the 15".
Could it be due to better cooling on the 17" apple have clocked the gpu at a higher rate than the 15" would that explain the higher geekbench results and therefore negate the higher res 17" not as good for gaming argument??
Or perhaps the better CPU cooling results in less CPU throttling - not an expert but there has to be a reason for the higher Geek-bench result on the 17"
The 2.2 17" looks faster than the 2.3 15"...
Reference gaming on the higher res 17" being not as fast due to the res. Compared to the 15" with the same graphics card.
If you look at the geek bench results published in another topic in this forum it would seem that the 17" is getting better results than the 15".
Could it be due to better cooling on the 17" apple have clocked the gpu at a higher rate than the 15" would that explain the higher geekbench results and therefore negate the higher res 17" not as good for gaming argument??
Or perhaps the better CPU cooling results in less CPU throttling - not an expert but there has to be a reason for the higher Geek-bench result on the 17"
The 2.2 17" looks faster than the 2.3 15"...
Last edited:
Geekbench results shouldn't be relied on completely. It doesn't take into account the GPU at all, and the slightly better cooling in the 17" (hence better turbo) could explain the small difference in scores. Also, there is a lot of variation in GeekBench, even just running the test multiple times. Most 15" results I've seen were over 10k.
It's likely the 17" has slightly higher GPU clocks, however you could easily get the 15" GPU even higher by overclocking. Either way, performance is going to be much better on 900p than 1200p screen.
Yeah, but since when was there a Mac game capable of stressing the 6750M?
OK, maybe SC2, but you'd get more benefit playing that in Boot Camp rather than overclocking anyway.
Performance is one thing but the overall experience is another. So cmon, can it really be THAT big of a noticeable/meaningful difference in frame-rate? --I mean they are the same card, same processor, just different resolution. This is World of Warcraft were talking about here which runs smooth even on the 11 inch MBA! You're telling me with all that "desktop replacement" power, the eye can tell the difference between a couple extra frames?
But what is obviously a clear-cut difference is the extra two inches. Despite what she said, 2 inches goes a long way and that is a clear benefit; a larger beautiful screen, --compared to the arbitrary benefit of having a smaller resolution and five extra unnoticeable frames per second.
So performance is not that different/noticeable but the overall eye-ball experience is legitimately discernible and better on the 17"
Besides, its too late, I ordered it, so now I am in defense mode lol.
Well, 1920*1080/1440/900 = 1.6, so the 17" has 60% more pixels than the normal 15". So yes, I expect it would make a big difference to framerates.
However, I think I'm going to go for a 17". I mean, the only thing that's better about the 15" screen is playing very demanding games. Less demanding games, watching movies, web surfing, reading/writing documents, are all better on the higher res screen.
And I'm still convinced it'd be OK to just lower the resolution on the 17" when you do want to play Crysis 2.
Unboxing video coming tomorrow! (its very over the top) Plus a World of Warcraft test on the 2011 17" which isn't on YouTube yet!