Done for 2009: The Holiday MacBook Pro Roundup
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 10, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Final Words
We know what's coming. Two cores, Hyper Threading and Turbo Boost. Chances are Arrandale will be the first noticeable performance improvement the MacBook Pro line has seen since 2007. If these machines weren't so good, waiting would be the only option.
Apple deserves credit for giving users a reason to upgrade. Intel bases its roadmaps off of how competitive AMD will be in the future. AMD's mobile CPUs weren't doing so well, and thus the mobile Core 2 Duo lineup didn't improve in performance much over the past couple of years. It's all a very well planned roadmap on Intel's part to maximize profit, but that unfortunately leaves OEMs in a difficult position: how do you sell an upgrade when performance hasn't improved?
Apple looked at Intel's roadmap and saw an opportunity to introduce a new chassis and then new battery technology. If you can't offer performance there are other avenues for innovation. The unibody MacBook Pro, when it first debuted at the end of 2008, looked and felt beautiful yet it had issues. The glass trackpad had problems under Windows and the glossy displays made outdoor use on sunny days a real problem. A driver update and matte option later, Apple moved focus back onto design and build quality.
That's a pretty lineu, er, stackup
It's a good lineup. If you're buying a MacBook Pro in time for the holidays, the decision between the three really boils down to screen resolution. The screen with the highest pixel density belongs to the 17-inch MacBook Pro, followed by the 13-inch and then the 15-inch. The best balance in my opinion is the 15-inch, while it's not as easy to carry around as the 13-inch I don't feel as cramped by its display. 1280 x 800 is just too small for having a lot on the screen at once, regardless of OS X's efficiencies in my opinion.
For the most part Apple made reasonable hardware choices with its systems, the only real issue there is the 2GB entry level MacBook Pro configuration which is just unacceptable for any real "pro" user. The base 13-inch and 15-inch systems could use a faster CPU; I'd prefer a 2.53GHz Core 2 in the 13-inch system (with 4GB of memory) and a 2.80GHz in the 15-inch.
For me, it's the battery life that won me over. I have a desktop, I use my notebooks to write on, edit a few images, browse the web and do general work-stuff. All of which means lots of idle time between tasks and ultimately, better battery life under OS X. The move to the integrated battery made the MacBook Pro the first true balance of performance and battery life in my opinion. Netbooks deliver the battery life but given that I spend my days on very fast desktops, I just can't put up with the performance.
The rest of the system really isn't up for debate. Build quality is top notch, by moving the only removable panel to the bottom of the machine Apple virtually eliminated the squeaks and creaks that often plague notebooks. The keyboards are not only consistent between all models (no tradeoffs there, even if you opt for the ultra thin Macbook Air), but they are also a joy to type on. I spend most of my life typing and can appreciate the fact that Apple has nearly perfected the notebook keyboard. The keys are all of a good size, provide beautiful feedback (unlike similar chiclet designs) and don't feel cheap.
The glossy screens are a pain in most outdoor situations, even cranking up the brightness all the way won't wash out the giant sunspot in the middle of your screen if you're outside and without cover. Apple offers a matte option but I have yet to test it. That being said, for my usage, the glossy screens aren't really an issue. I spend most of my time writing indoors or if I'm outdoors, I'm under some sort of cover. I would definitely encourage you to evaluate your usage conditions before committing to glossy vs. matte on the MacBook Pro.
The glass covered trackpad is finally a win for me. I had issues with it when it first debuted last year but the smooth of tracking is something I wish I had on other laptops. The lack of any physical buttons is, like on the iPhone, a non-issue. It's even less controversial since the entire trackpad moves vertically to give you a physical click when you push it.
Give me a good SSD option (ahem, Intel X25-M G2 por favor) and a quicker way of getting to it and I'd say Apple would have nearly perfected the 2009 notebook. You really just have to pick what screen size you want.
Pricing is a difficult pill to swallow, especially on the larger systems. The 13-inch system I tested starts at $1199, but the 15 and 17-inch models start at $1699 and $2499. The more desirable 4GB/2.53GHz 13-inch spec costs $1499, while the 15-inch model is really just missing an Intel X25-M G2. In a world where seeing notebooks start above $999 is almost unheard of, if you're not an existing Mac user, Apple has to do a lot of convincing to reach the higher price points.
The first point of convincing comes from Mac OS X. While virtually anything you can do in OS X can be done in Windows 7, some prefer the OS X way. Fair enough, if you want OS X, you need a Mac. The second comes from the battery life advantages - for light usage, especially if you're a writer, OS X can't be beat. The entire 2009 MacBook Pro lineup is capable of delivering over 7 hours of battery life. Apple's battery claims are honest and much higher than what the PC competition can offer today. Heavier workloads however don't show a real advantage over Windows 7 battery life.
The remaining advantages come down to build quality and design. The unibody construction is quite good, I'd say a step above what most competitors offer. The design is also something to be appreciated. The table below should help highlight the tradeoff:
| Apple 15-inch MacBook Pro | Dell Studio 15 | |
| CPU | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53GHz | Intel Core i7 720QM |
| Dimensions | 14.35" x 9.82" x 0.95" | 14.6" x 10.0" x 1.0" - 1.5" |
| Weight | 5.5 lbs | 5.54 lbs |
| Price | $1699 | $999 |
I highlighted the important differences in this spec comparison. Dell delivers a faster CPU at a much lower price point than Apple. Apple comes in a bit lighter, but in a overall smaller package. At its thickest point the Dell Studio 15 measures 1.5" in height, compared to a constant 0.95" from the 15-inch MacBook Pro. If OS X and battery life aren't as important to you, then what you're paying more for is a smaller system. Presumably much of the CPU performance advantage goes away with Arrandale next year. The takeaway is that if you aren't hooked on OS X, then there's little financial sense in looking at the larger MacBook Pros.
The price disparity shrinks as you go to smaller systems, the 13-inch MacBook Pro is priced competitively with Dell's Studio XPS 13 (although Dell is still cheaper):
| Apple 13-inch MacBook Pro | Dell Studio XPS 13 | |
| CPU | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.26GHz | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53GHz |
| Memory | 2GB DDR3-1066 | 4GB DDR3-1066 |
| GPU | NVIDIA GeForce 9400M (integrated) | NVIDIA GeForce 9500M 256MB (discrete) |
| Dimensions | 12.78" x 8.94" x 0.95" | 12.56" x 9.3" x 0.88" - 1.35" |
| Weight | 4.5 lbs | 4.85 lbs |
| Price | $1199 | $1199 |
The specs are pretty close. Dell wins in the CPU/memory categories, Apple does it in a smaller package. But the price discrepancy isn't as large as on the 15-inch and 17-inch models.
My biggest complaint has to do with Apple's handling of 3rd party SSDs in the MacBook Pro. Enthusiast users are having real issues with SSDs that seem to work fine in other systems. Blanket statements of not supporting non-Apple configurations don't seem to be the best way to deal with the problem.
The reduction in battery life under Snow Leopard is also an example of Apple seemingly not putting in the appropriate amount of resources into testing its products before their release. While I've often said that Apple is a smaller company than most realize, it's on a dangerous path of becoming a company whose first release of any new product can't be trusted. Even after two updates to Snow Leopard we're still left with something that's not quite perfect.
The 2009 MacBook Pro lineup isn't for everyone, you really have to be either curious about OS X or a full blown convert. If you are however, Apple has done a wonderful job. Just pick a screen size.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
115 Comments
View All Comments
ltcommanderdata - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
I believe Anand did comment on screen resolution on page 4 where he found the 15" resolution just right for the screen between space and not being an eyestrain. Personally, I agree that 1440x900 on a 15" screen is about right. I've found 1680x1050 on a 15" screen to be a bit too dense. Although that just brings up Apple's lack of progress on resolution independence which has been in development since Tiger.On the topic of screens, I wonder what are the chances that Apple will move to 16:9 screens as on the iMac and as other notebook manufacturers are doing. I hope not as 16:10 is wide enough and it's not like watching movies is the only thing people do on their laptops. Besides, for the creative industry users working on 16:9 content, 16:10 screens should make sense to leave room for toolbars and such for editing.
secretanchitman - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
agreed. 1680x1050 on the 15" would be absolutely perfect. i would rather have 16:10 rather than 16:9.i would also love to see core i5/core i7 (doubtful on core i7 though), a much faster gpu (next gen nvidia/ati), and the expresscard slot to make a return as an option. also, most of all, PLEASE make sure the matte screen and silver bezel return!
darwinosx - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
I like the current resolution. Anything higher would be too high for me.ltcommanderdata - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
I don't know exactly how it works, but I've read before that 64-bit Safari is able to use a 32-bit Flash plugin through InterProcess Communications (IPC). Presumably, this causes more overhead and the 32-bit Flash plugin wasn't designed/optimized for this in mind, so that could explain why battery life is so poor under 64-bit Safari with Flash.In terms of Macs, I have to agree that qualities like battery life, weight, look, and feel are things that can be worth paying extra for even if they are harder to definitively measure and compare.
I wonder what Apple is going to do about the IGP situation when they move to Arrandale? It definitely seems strange that nVidia's CEO picks now of all times to advertise his love for Macs after ATI pushed nVidia out for discrete GPUs for the iMacs and on the eve of Arrandale's IGP and DMI link. Presumably Apple could consider using switchable graphics between Arrandale's IGP and discrete GPUs even for low-end models. The effort put into Intel IGP drivers in Snow Leopard bringing the GMA X3100 up from OpenGL 1.2 support in Leopard to OpenGL 2.0 support seems to indicate a readiness of Intel IGPs. It will of course force the introduction of another chip on the motherboard, which is a concern for the space constrained 13" MacBook Pro.
If Intel won't license DMI to nVidia, I wonder if Intel would license it to their good buddy Apple. Apple could then license nVidia graphics technology to serve as the IGP for their own custom chipset. Apple used to design their own chipsets in the PowerPC days and certainly have the resources to do so now with the P.A. Semi team. Besides a better IGP, a custom chipset would also allow Apple to integrate functionality currently done by external chips like Firewire controllers and the multi touch touchpad controller as well as adopt new technologies like USB 3.0 and Lightpeak without waiting on Intel. I believe Jobs did say in a previous conference call their intention to differentiate themselves by offering technology that no one else has and this is certainly one way to do it.
This article seems to mention Arrandale a lot as the future processor of the MacBook Pro, but hopefully Clarksfield will also be available on the 17" and high-end 15" models. Clarksfield clock speeds are disappointing though (1.6GHz - 2GHz) so it'll be interesting to see how Apple plays it.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
Clarksfield is a power hog, and there's no getting around that. I've got an i7-720QM based laptop and if I use absolutely minimal performance settings (CPU at 0%, HDD turn off at 1 minute, DVD and webcam turned off when on battery) I barely get 90 minutes of battery life with a 55Wh battery.I can't imagine Apple will ever use Clarksfield in a laptop, because they are targeting mobile battery life far more than mobile performance. Frankly, even the top-end 17" MacBook Pro is pretty weak in many of the performance areas we'd look at on Windows. A 9600M GPU is nothing to write home about -- 32 SPs is what we had back in the days of the GeForce 8600. OS X seems more dependent on CPU, though.
I'm also curious about which CPUs Apple is using; previously they used the SL9000 and SP9000 I'm pretty sure, but now it looks like they're using standard P8000, P9000 and even T9000 parts (though only on the 15" and 17" for the T9000 I'm sure). Maybe Anand can say which specific CPUs are in the Macs now.
ltcommanderdata - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
I didn't know Clarksfield battery life was so bad at idle/light usage. I thought that peak power consumption would be higher, but idle/light power would be comparable or better then high-end mobile Core 2 Duos due to the Power Control Unit. I guess Clarksfield could serve as the real test of Apple's power management abilities. Although with Anand finding that a MacBook Pro gets 78% better battery life in OS X than Windows 7, and a 17" MacBook Pro having a 95Wh battery compared to your 55Wh battery, if you get 90 minutes with the i7-720QM, Apple could get around 4.6hrs in OS X on a 17" MacBook Pro with that processor which is okay. Although Clarksfield would probably be limited to BTO only to avoid confusion.And I agree that Apple's GPU choices are generally questionable, especially seeing OS X's heavy reliance on the GPU starting with Quartz Extreme acceleration in Jaguar in 2002, Core Image in Tiger in 2005, and now OpenCL in Snow Leopard. I guess the only small consolation is that Apple always uses at least GDDR3 with their GPUs, even low end ones like the HD2400XT in the iMac, and doesn't resort to advertising high VRAM capacities and then sneaking in low clock speed DDR2. Hopefully, Apple's notebook refresh jumps directly to DX11 GPUs, presumably ATI since they seem to be first out of the gate. Preferably, they will go with a high mid-range GPU, although I guess heat and power and always Apple's concerns in a 1" case.
darwinosx - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
OS X is not "dependent" on cpu but it can use the cpu for things other than standard vid card work.dagamer34 - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
Clarksfield is a 45W CPU, which Apple will never use due to heat concerns.I'm really hoping that Apple changes the screen to a 16:9 ratio, which would be perfect for watching HD content. Something like: 1366x768 for the 13", 1680x950 for the 15" and 1920x1080 for the 17" would be a great improvement.
kapute - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
16:9 screen ratio is terrible idea for laptops. Ok for watching movies but not when using a word-processor as all the tool bars etc diminish vertical space leaving a tiny letter box to type in. Better to have black bars top and bottom when watching a movie and more vertical space for everything else.ltcommanderdata - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
Well, I'm pretty sure Apple's top end CPUs like the 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo and 3GHz BTO in the high-end 15" and 17" MacBook Pros are 35W TDP processors. The PM55 northbridge has a 7W TDP. It's hard to isolate a comparison to the 9400M chipset since it has both northbridge and southbridge integrated. Still, 35W CPU + ~7W for a northbridge compared to 45W for an integrated CPU + NB in Clarksfield doesn't seem unreasonable, from a heat dissipation perspective.