Sidebar Sidebar
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?

17" MacBook Pro
Height: 0.98 inch (2.50 cm)
Width: 15.47 inches (39.3 cm)
Depth: 10.51 inches (26.7 cm)
Weight: 6.6 pounds (2.99 kg)


15" MacBook Pro
Height: 0.95 inch (2.41 cm)
Width: 14.35 inches (36.4 cm)
Depth: 9.82 inches (24.9 cm)
Weight: 5.6 pounds (2.54 kg)

So....
Height is virtually the same.
Width difference of about 1 inch
Depth difference of LESS than 3/4 inch.

The 17" REALLY is not that much bigger at all. I actually think in terms of value, when your consider the 15" high end vs. 17", the 17" is not a bad deal at all. And I wanted to go for a powerhouse laptop that is of course still VERY portable and powerful, but don't need something that is "portable" in the sense that it has to be very small and fit somewhere specific. I just simply need portable.

I've had the 13" MBP Unibody, Two 15" (One prev gen.), and opted to go with the 17" this time around for a few reasons:

More ports (A MUST because these new unibody ports are on one side and very limited)
More Real Estate (great screen look, absolute beauty)
Speakers
ExpressCard
Overall slightly larger size is roomier for internal hardware fitment.
Great specs (same as 15" High End though)
And it's just the the Big Bad A$$ :cool:.

Just my 2 ¢ :D
 
Last edited:
Bobby Corwen said:
So you're saying the screen is too large and the resolution not large enough so it has less fine detail than a 1680 15" screen?

So a high res 15 would look prettier in detail?

Or does it more have to do with the ratio and shape of the resolution/screen?
Click to expand...

What he is saying is the higher pixel count comes at a very large price for gaming. I'm not sure if the GPU in the new MBP could runs starcraft 2 with completely maxed out settings even at 1680x1050, i can almost guarantee if won't be able to handle 1920x1080. And when you get to the point where you have to run the resolution at a lower than native resolution just to get a stable framerate, then it isn't going to look so hot.
 
dallas112678 said:
What he is saying is the higher pixel count comes at a very large price for gaming. I'm not sure if the GPU in the new MBP could runs starcraft 2 with completely maxed out settings even at 1680x1050, i can almost guarantee if won't be able to handle 1920x1080. And when you get to the point where you have to run the resolution at a lower than native resolution just to get a stable framerate, then it isn't going to look so hot.
Click to expand...

Surprisingly the 6750 plays SC2 fine at 1920x1200 high settings in bootcamp. I was getting 50+ fps in multiplayer 1v1's and 2v2's and that is at stock settings (600/800) I have recently overclocked the 6750 to 800/900 which has given me a 3dmark06 score of almost 11000!
I am also playing COD BO, MOH2010 and BFBC2 all at 1920x1200 with high settings so it is a very capable card.

I am sure future games will demand power and I may have to lower the res but I need the 1920x1200 real estate for xcode and cs4 so it is well worth it for me
 
Surprisingly the 6750 plays SC2 fine at 1920x1200 high settings in bootcamp.
Click to expand...

How about native in Mac OS X?

I really am in a dilemma now with regard to this.

Tomorrow I need decided between 15" Standard screen 1440x990 and 17" 1920x1200 screen.

Will be playing Wow, SC2, KOTOR,Diablo 3.

Was hoping to play all the above at 1920x1200 at high-max settings on the 17" but it looks like that will not be a possibility? and perhaps the 1440x900 15" would be better choice for above.

30-40FPS consistent would be fine for me.
 
Bobby Corwen said:
My favorite part is that everyone that sees it, (you rarely see them in the wild) --everyone that sees it will know: "OK there is no doubt in my mind that that guy has a powerful computer, (since they never manufacture weak 17s) and he will surely know at some point in time that I had Two Thousand, Five Hundred dollars to spare on a purchase.
Click to expand...

Soooooo... You're buying a computer because of what other people think?

Can't help ya. Ya won't like what I think. :p
 
I have an older 17" MacBook Pro and it's way too big. It sits on desk and rarely every moves because its just too big to lug around and very fragile.
 
Always thought 15'' hits the perfect spot for me, but I have to say this is the first time I am seriously in two minds as to what my next MBP purchase will be.

Luckily I have some months left to make up my mind before an AG 15''/17'' pops up in the Refurb section : )
 
Bobby Corwen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Congrats on your purchase! 17" great choice, larger screen is nice compared to the 15".
 
I have the new 17": here are my results on win 7: COD MW2: 1920x1200 maxed out settings 40-80 fps Starcraft 2: 1920x1200 maxed out all settings, shadows, aa, etc.: 35+fps. Really good performance all around, im loving it. Im installing crysis today
 
krimsen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree and disagree. As a former 15" Santa Rosa, before that...PowerBook G4 (that I still use for P2 card off load in the field:))...I switched to the initial 17" Unibody and have owned one since...just picked up the new SB 2.2 stock machine last week. I agree with you on the speakers. MUCH better performance over the 15's....as well, the PCMICA expansion someone questioned earlier....

rareflares said:
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.
Click to expand...

...Made me giggle, in fact! Uncontrollably:) LOL! The ExpressCard Slot offers "Infinitely" more possibilities than your proprietary, one card SDXC slot:) Just a quick gander at OWC (macsales.com) in their laptop peripheral section will show ya! The ability to add 9in1, 15in1, 35in1 memory card readers (I made up those numbers:)), extra USB, extra F/W 4 or 800, eSata slots, even Lacie with their Proprietary (for now) USB 3.0 slot...not to mention, a plethora of extra peripherals for software on the market in the professional media production departments. It's an awesome little option, and one that can most certainly take care of SDXC requirements, and CF, XD, SD/mini SD, XFlmnop...:)


Bobby Corwen said:
ouch, that was quite a one two punch.
Click to expand...

Yep, agreed...one that didn't make much sense. Guys...even ladies, if you're fine to hike around with a 15...you'll be more than fine to have a 17" in your bag, as it's only a pound or so heavier. If you're truly having issues toting a 17, you really need to look in to the gym. If it's a powerhouse computer you need, don't worry about the weight of the unit. If you do NOT need the power, look at an MBAir:)

I will never buy anything other than the 17. The screen alone is worth the price of admission. No need to tote another monitor for excellent visibility, it's an incredible back up for what we do as a company in the field, primary machines are iMacs, and finally...I love having it as my primary computer and daily user. I live in Alaska...so I do have to fly often to get anywhere....for that, these days...it's my iPad! As others have said, the iPhone is fine as well. I don't need a full size laptop on the plane anymore....as ridiculous as those seats have become, I can't even open a 13" properly (if the guy/gal in seat in front reclines)...without myself cranking my neck off to one side or the other:) The iPad is a perfect device for in air entertainment, IMHO!

As far as a "flex" to the 17" or issues with build quality??? Again, as an owner of a 2008, 10, and now 11 I've felt NO such issue...they are built like a Brick *****house!!! With extra cooling room, they run a bit cooler than the 15 and seemingly benchmark a hair faster...I believe, because of the ability to run cooler. Mind you...these benchmarking improvements are minimal...literally a percentage point or even less...yet to me, some peace of mind...as we use them solely as audio and video editing machines....and if that means a few more hours on the back end because of less overheating, so be it. This is purely a theoretical opinion of mine, as a electronics user in the field for over two decades...and how heat affects my gear;)

So...to the OP, to make a long story short...if you really did pick up the 17, congratulations...if you're anything like myself, and my colleague who also switched over to the 17 a couple years back...you'll be hooked! It doesn't get any better...and I think you'll be surprised at actually how easy it is to find a bag or carry case for it. In fact, the Brenthaven bag I have for mine is fit for a 15", and is sold that way. I have my 2011 in a transparent Speck case and it still fits nice and snugly in that Brenthaven case (I've had since my '07 Santa Rosa 15":)) So don't discount the 15 bags...bring your 17 with you shopping to fit it.

Also....whoever compared the "PC 17" experience to a MacBook Pro 17"....Wow!!! you've obviously NEVER had the opportunity to hold a 17" MBP. There isn't a comparison....this is a night and day difference! Doesn't matter the make of the PC, IMO....the Envys are close (but do they make a 17?), and this coming from a 20 year PC only user...and still, and ambidextrous user by necessity. They just don't compare, IMO...for a 17" laptop, the MBP is a piece of art, and not at all tough to carry around. I mean come on folks!!! Get up off the couch and ride a bike, take a walk....:rolleyes:
 
AdamRock said:
IMO anything under 17" isnt really a laptop.
.
Click to expand...

When I first read that comment I didn't really understand. Now that I got the 17 and am posting from it.....

I understand.

I can already tell that I would never be able to go back to a lower size now. It's too intensely addictive. I cant stop looking at the screen.

I'm editing the un-boxing video on iMovie on it right now, and also downloading world of warcraft in the background at the same time. (its like a week-long process).
 
Where will you use the 17" most often, at a desk, on the couch/lap or ?

I'd love to work from a 17" screen, only reason I don't is I like my 13" MacBook Air so much. It's light and easy to take anywhere, you can type with it on your lap for hours and not even notice the size or weight ... it just fits.

I am still so tempted to try a 17" ... more screen real estate means more productivity I agree ... I just don't want to buy the 17" and then end up still using the 13" the most because it is that easy/fun to just pick up and use....
 
Bobby Corwen said:
When I first read that comment I didn't really understand. Now that I got the 17 and am posting from it.....

I understand.

I can already tell that I would never be able to go back to a lower size now. It's too intensely addictive. I cant stop looking at the screen.

I'm editing the un-boxing video on iMovie on it right now, and also downloading world of warcraft in the background at the same time. (its like a week-long process).
Click to expand...

Haha! Congrats, I can't wait till mine comes in!!! Did you end up getting AG??
 
Go 17" I just went through the same thing being a DJ I use serato alot and with the extra screen space its awesome to see all my crates and tracks!!

Also its pure eyecandy in the club!!
 
dekka007 said:
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"...
Click to expand...
Meh, nonsense. The Geekbench score I got on my new 15" MacBook Pro beats the top 17" MacBook Pro score you linked to.
 
Bobby Corwen said:
If you go to your WoW graphics settings and slide the slider all the way to the right. What happens? Try it.

Are the graphics perfectly fluid? Or sluggish?
Click to expand...

I can answer this, Org at full settings 1440x900 ( Im talking Ultra with everything on max) I avg. 45+FPS... In a 5man (you name it) I never see it start to even think of dropping below 60 FPS (vsync on)
 
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