Apple's 13-inch MacBook Pro (Early 2010) Reviewed: Shaking the CPU/GPU Balance
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 9, 2010 12:15 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
- Apple
- Intel
- MacBook Pro
- NVIDIA
Final Words
The 13-inch MacBook Pro continues to be portable Mac of choice for most users. You get a decent performance over the MacBook Air while maintaining a good degree of portability and battery life. It doesn't hurt that it's also by far the most affordable in the Pro lineup.
Apple also keeps delivering with its honest battery life claims. I measured between 3.5 and 9.75 hours of battery life on the new 13-inch MacBook Pro depending on workload. The 13-inch gives you a good combination of netbook-like battery life but with the performance on tap when you need it.
The missing Core i5 is by far the biggest issue in my eyes. It's the only thing that makes the 13-inch MacBook Pro a good portable but not the perfect notebook. While it's fast enough for most tasks the Core i5/i7 are significantly faster in anything that's CPU intensive, and it's a difference that's noticeable. For me personally, it's the faster CPU and higher resolution that make the 15-inch model my choice. While I can appreciate Apple's desire to have a base level of GPU functionality across its entire lineup the fact of the matter is that today, the killer apps for GPUs continue to be 3D games. If you aren't spending a lot of time gaming on your notebook then Apple's CPU/GPU balance isn't optimal.
If you've got last year's 13-inch model you'd get more bang for your buck by upgrading to 4GB of memory and/or buying an SSD. The exception of course being if you play any 3D games.
The GeForce 320M in the 13-inch MacBook Pro is fast enough to play anything Valve has out for OS X today. If you reboot into Windows you can even get over 60fps at the panel's native resolution in Half Life 2 Episode 2. Stick around in OS X and you're looking at the mid-40s. Not bad. This is roughly twice the performance of the GeForce 9400M used in last year's model.
I'm very curious to see what Apple will do going forward. At some point it will have to abandon the Core 2 platform in favor of the new Core i3/5/7 family. Moving back to a 3-chip solution will require a board redesign, which I'd expect out of the next generation MacBook Pro. Apple is very committed to using powerful GPUs in its products, I'm more interested in finding out why. There's got to be a killer app brewing somewhere in there.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
runebinder - Saturday, June 26, 2010 - link
Hi there, just waded through a few pages of comments to see if anyone had already posted it, gave up in the end as more of it was PC Vs Mac then anything else, so apologies if this has already been reported.Got an i7 15" MacBook Pro and installed a 120GB Vertex 2E today, checked System Profiler to see if Apple were limiting SATA speeds as they have previously have and noticed mine has TRIM Support: No listed as well. Just thought I'd mention it as the article states that this is limited to the 13" only. If it's old news then just ignore.
tno - Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - link
This was reported on, and all signs do point to an eventual adoption of TRIM in OS X; as well as a more aggressive use of the GPGPU. Maybe Lion? Maybe Liono?tno - Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - link
A user commented:"I know this wont mean anything to anyone who already has their mind made up. But I have a ridiculous desktop for running games and any intense windows apps. However I also have a 13" macbook pro that is awesome. It stays charged for a very long time even running a virtual machine (vmware fusion is great) for when i need to do something in windows xp or 7. I have it partitioned with windows 7 which I can either boot into if I really need the extra performance for something or I can load it in vmware to get any files I may need. It has some useful terminal commands built in and the trackpad is hands down the best I have ever used. Using any other laptop feels gimmicky compared to the multitouch and all the stupid hand swipe gestures that surprisingly increase productivity! It does cost more, but it isnt plastic and I really feel that people complain about the glossy screen just to find something to complain about. I would never buy an apple desktop but I feel that the 13" mbp is a great computer. "
This is exactly what the usage scenario of which Apple is taking advantage. What's the best way to play video games? On a console or on a Windows PC. Would Apple like a piece of that pie? Sure and they're working on it but that's never going to be a driving influence behind a Mac purchase. But let's move "play" then into the category of "consumption," that is the user of a consumption device is consuming a media, in this case a game. Apple designs their laptops and desktops for "production," they want their machines to be devices you work on. And this has always been so.
So, will the gamer find their Starcraft 2 or Call of Duty performance inadequate? You bet. But that's why they make gaming laptops. Apple doesn't sell those.
To everyone else, and that includes casual gamers that make up the vast majority of computer users, getting work done on a Macintosh is great. Is it better than on a Windows machine? Windows 7 has come along way but I still find the windows management aspects of OS X vastly superior and that makes it worth it for me. Consumption is not the primary aim of Apple computers. That's the purview of . . . their consumption products. Want to listen to music? iPod/iPhone. Want to watch a movie? Apple TV. Want to read a book? iPad. Want to play a game? iOS. Two divisions of Apple, two different missions.
I belabor this point because I think it's important to keep in mind when discussing these products. Losing perspective is, to paraphrase an idiom, like discussing the citrus characteristics of an apple.