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
cheinonen - Wednesday, June 9, 2010 - link
Why do people treat Apple like they're the only person that uses Foxconn? HP, Dell, and others use them as well. I'm not excusing anything at Foxconn, but to single out Apple as only being able to do this because of who they use for manufacturing, when most other top companies use the same vendor, is ridiculous.james.jwb - Wednesday, June 9, 2010 - link
@jabberYour comment pretty much applies to 80% of everything you buy, period. You are living in a bubble and possibly even a hypocrite to get on your high horse about this product, or Foxconn so singularly.
But hey, it is being heavily talked about at the moment and it is in your face, so good for you for having this fleeting feeling of misplaced superiority that will no doubt disappear just as quickly as the misplaced headlines.
jabber - Thursday, June 10, 2010 - link
Fully aware that any electronic device has blood sweat and tears on it so I am fortunate enough to purchase it.I have been very aware of this for years.
However, it's been pretty apparent that many havent been aware of this and seem to wish to keep their heads in the sand so they dont have to feel guilty about it.
"I dont care what goes on as long as I get my new iPhone upgrade gimme gimme!"
The suicides at Foxconn are not necessarily Foxconn's fault.
It's OUR fault!
Our fault for wanting to only pay the minimum for more and more good such as these Macbooks, motherboards, GPUs etc. etc.
I just hope from events this past few weeks might make a few people think a little bit more before they purchase their next unnecessary electronic gadget.
Same goes for cheap, shoes, clothes, jewellry etc.
zorxd - Wednesday, June 9, 2010 - link
95% of mac users don't use their GPU. The Intel GMA HD GPU would have been more than enough for this kind of laptop. The Geforce 320M is too slow for gaming anyways so I don't see the point.jabber - Wednesday, June 9, 2010 - link
Noooo, dont be silly. The Geforce 105M in my Dell is more than enough to play a lot of the games I mess around with such as BF2 and Eve online. Eve plays at high settings and gives around 60fps.We dont all play Crysis and Call Of Donkey Modern Warfare 4 whatever.
Ninjahedge - Wednesday, June 9, 2010 - link
Maybe more would if it HAD a GPU to begin with.If the current Mac users do not buy their machine to game on (or any other GPU intensive task) because there is no good GPU present, what is to say they will not buy and utilize it if it is included?
KoolAidMan1 - Thursday, June 10, 2010 - link
Not true, the OS X desktop has always leaned heavily on the GPU. The other thing is OpenCL which shipped with OS 10.6. Apple has to be prepping some major GPU computing in the next version of OS X, especially since it is a part of 10.6.I believe this is the "thing" Anand is waiting for, we'll see. It makes sense why Apple would put such a relatively high baseline on their GPUs, otherwise they'd just go with the Arrandale's anemic graphics and call it a day.
bang222 - Wednesday, June 9, 2010 - link
They took away support for jumbo frames in the Broadcom ethernet chip.:-(
Big minus if you tune your NAS.
CharonPDX - Wednesday, June 9, 2010 - link
Uh, I call bull.
Apple fit a three-chip solution in the first MacBook Air. Yes, the CPU was on a smaller mount, but it was still a three-chip solution on a microscopic board. If they really wanted to, they could slap a three-chip solution in the 13" MBP.
solipsism - Wednesday, June 9, 2010 - link
1) The MBA had the CULV C2D and GMA950 or 9400M. That's two!2) The MBA is 13" but it also using a SFF chip, has low power and low heat, thereby needs less venting and can use a smaller fan and heatsink.
3) The MBA has a 1.8" drive, not a 2.5" drive.
4) The MBA has no optical drive whilst the MB and 13" MBP do.
— MBA internals: http://s1.guide-images.ifixit.com/igi/WPhHIikf5jBW...
— MBA MoBo: http://www.ifixit.com/igi/KJJyYGCKwbfhmAJI
— 13" MBP internals: http://s2.guide-images.ifixit.com/igi/FkpKKrqQlYsg...
— 13" MBP MoBo: http://s1.guide-images.ifixit.com/igi/XaPYhlwqukef...
If you're going to call "bull" then i assume that you have detailed info as to where all this extra room is that a Core-i chip + dGPU + additional fan would go in this system.
it seems to me that the only way they could add the items you think are so easily included which altering the dimensions of the internal space is to reduce the size of the battery (which is still too lower than most people would like it to be at) or remove the optical drive (which oft goes unused, is slow, mote prone to break due to moving parts, and takes up 25% of the internal space). I'm going with the latter.