Apple MacBook Pro 13: Can a Mac Be a Decent Windows Laptop?
by Vivek Gowri on October 14, 2010 9:00 PM ESTApple MacBook Pro 13—Core 2 Duo Performance
It’s kind of embarrassing to be reviewing a $1200 computer with a two year old processor and application performance to match. It’s not that evident in day to day use, and in most games performance is more dependant on the graphics card, but application performance benchmarks are where the Core 2 Duo really makes itself felt (and not in a good way).
Here’s why it’s really sad: the MBP13 results would fit pretty well in our old Core 2 Duo notebook roundups, like this one from two years ago. The G50V and dv5t were $1200 notebooks back then, and they’re basically on par with the current MBP13. Quite frankly, it’s almost pathetic that Apple decided they could get away with a Core 2-based processor for another year at a price point that can get you a 14” aluminum unibody notebook with a quad core i7-720QM (HP, we’d still like to test an Envy 14, thanks). People expect Macs to cost more almost by default, but after a couple of years of the MBP13 being a decent value for a premium quality notebook (look at the old Envy 13 for comparison), it’s particularly jarring now to see it be so far behind the competition. I have none of these complaints for the Core i5/i7 sporting 15” and 17” models, however.
At this juncture, any notebook with a Core i3 can outrun the MBP. Same goes for the Core i7 ULV chip. We’ve never tested a Core i5 ULV, but we'll see the Core i3 ULV in a review shortly and it's in the same ballpark as Core 2—and the overclocked Core i3-330UM in the ASUS UL80Jt is basically on par with the MBP.
There are two ways you can look at this; you can say that at this point, anything with a Core 2 (even an old Merom) is more than powerful enough to run Windows and handle any reasonable task a thin and light notebook might be asked to. A lot of Apple fans say that. There’s another camp that says it’s completely unreasonable for Apple to sell a notebook with a Core 2 Duo processor at $1200, regardless of what it might be asked to do—there are smaller, thinner, lighter systems that perform better in basically every way. A lot of anti-Apple fans say that. They’re both right.
The Core 2 Duo is most certainly adequate to handle the normal, every day rigors of a portable notebook, but that’s not a reasonable justification for Apple selling a notebook that is more expensive than more powerful competitors. Apple is getting a bargain price on P8600 CPUs and the 320M chipset, which means the Core 2 + 320M is more about increasing profit margins than anything else. (And for those people who still cling to the theory that Apple couldn’t fit a third chip onto the board without reducing the battery size or making the notebook larger, that’s nonsense. If ASUS can manage to fit a Core 2010 processor, the chipset, and a dedicated graphics card into a system with similar dimensions to the MBP13 and a 33% larger battery, then Apple could have too. Simple as that.)
While we're here, we also ran all the 3DMark suites. This hints at the Core 2 + 320M combination being a lot more impressive than the above results, but then why couldn't Apple get GT 320M or faster with switching graphics into the system instead? Oh, right: that's only for 15" and 17" MBP. More on this when you hit the next page.
Okay, 320M looks decent, but the CPU is still old. We'll get into the graphics stuff on the next page, but while we're here looking at 3DMarks, we do have a quick question: how many of you want us to continue posting 3DMark results with our laptop reviews? We know they're a consistent point of reference for the long-term, but 03 and 05 in particular are getting very long in the tooth. So, if you want to sound off in the comments, would you like us to ditch 3DMark entirely, keep 06 and Vantage, keep all four like we've got above, or only skip 03/05?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
117 Comments
View All Comments
B3an - Friday, October 15, 2010 - link
I agree. I dont own either laptop but have used the Sony Vaio Z and this Macbook Pro. The Sony Vaio Z is literally better in every way i can think of. And it's definitely smaller and lighter as you say.It kinda makes me sick that people buy Apple products when there's better alternatives that are actually worth the money they cost and have up to date hardware.
GeorgeH - Friday, October 15, 2010 - link
Carbon fiber is lighter than aluminum too. :)I did the math before making the first post - here are the results:
13"MBP - 108.5 in^3
15"MBP - 133.9 in^3
Z - 102.9-133.8 in^3
The Z isn't a conveniently rectangular like the MBP, so volume is much harder to measure. Best possible case it's 95% of a 13" MBP, worst case it's essentially the same size as a 15" MBP. My money is on it being much closer to the latter than the former. It certainly feels smaller, but when you're trying to cram components into a chassis what something feels like is kind of irrelevant.
doobydoo - Saturday, October 16, 2010 - link
Of course, when buying or using a laptop, what it 'feels like' is the only relevance, the actual imperceivable size being absolutely irrelevant.That being said, I have measured the height of the Vaio at the front and the back, and both the front and the back measurements specified by the manufacturer include 0.1 and 0.2 extra for the feet (respectively). The actual sizes are 0.9 at the front and 1.1 at the back (excluding the feet).
Applying these dimensions gives an overall 102.92 cubic inches, significantly less than both Apples, which backs up the easy-to-tell feeling you get when you see them both next to each other.
So Sony has managed to put together a significantly faster laptop (with i7 processor and RAID SSD's as well as dedicated GPU), in a package which is smaller, lighter, and more stylish than an Apple, and one which can run Windows 7 without overheating.
mlambert890 - Saturday, October 16, 2010 - link
This has to be one of the craziest discussions I've ever seen... Dude... Take your 13" MBP and go to a Sony store with it... Put it next to a MacBook. You're measuring volumes and water displacement on a laptop. You don't see how that's crazy?The Z is a POUND and a HALF lighter and is OVER half an inch shorter in depth. It is smaller in every way that matters.
I don't own either laptop or particularly care, but it's just mind boggling the lengths a fanboy can go to not "lose" on a point.
Maybe Apple will make a smaller, faster laptop than the Z. Right now they don't. If that troubles your soul to the gore for some reason just fall back on "well it doesn't run OSX!". At least that makes SOME kind of sense.
GeorgeH - Saturday, October 16, 2010 - link
I don't own a MBP (or any other Apple products.) Personally I'd much rather have the Z than 13" MBP, and would recommend that anyone with the cash and no desire for OSX choose the Z as well.This was only about the engineering aspect of the thing, more specifically being able to cram ~3-5 new chips (dGPU and associated memory) and their associated cooling and peripheral components into the MBP to support Intel's newest CPUs. The claim was made that the Z was smaller but had more inside it, and I merely disagree that the Z actually is smaller.
In other words, the above is just a discussion about making computer hardware. That you thought otherwise is your fanboy malfunction, not mine. :)
softdrinkviking - Friday, October 15, 2010 - link
It strikes me as interesting that Apple devotes so much time and money to hardware integration. It undoubtedly adds to the development time and costs for any small change that goes into a new model. Apple kind of locks their designs in place down to the smallest detail.That's probably one reason why there isn't a new CPU; the development costs for all of that micro-managed integration are so astronomically high, and the process takes so long, that Apple can't get a CPU refresh to the public this year.
Perhaps the 'integrated approach' is not such a good thing if it keeps Apple from updating its CPUs to a competetive level.
I also don't understand why people have developed software to run windows on macs.. if the added value of a mac is the integration of the OS and the carefully choosen components, doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose of the mac experience?
Is there some kind of practical and necessary reason for it? Do mac owners sometimes get sick of OSX and install Win 7 just for a change of pace?
Side notes:
1 I don't think it's helpful to compare notebooks to desktops on a price/performance basis.
2 The value of 'little things' is too subjective to make a determination in the price of the MBP or any other laptop. Because of that, it's not really useful criteria for a PC to PC comparison. That is why, at least i think it's why, that Vivek stuck to things that can be measured and show their effects in benchmarks that show performance in tasks that people actual use.
The fact is, everybody has different tastes in keyboards and screens and trackpads and those sorts of things, so maybe an Acer is more desirable to some people, and should therefore demand a premium.
Basically, Apple is charging a little less than double the price of a 13" windows/linux/chrome laptop for mac OS and their choice of hardware. If you like both of those things to the tune of about double a windows machine, then you buy it.
It should not be hard, even for a mac fanboi, to see the lack of value in a MBP for someone who doesn't have a preference for Mac OS or Apple's hardware choices. (which is what this article is supposed to be about "Can it be a Decent Windows Laptop?")
Johnmcl7 - Friday, October 15, 2010 - link
The Vaio Z11/12/13 actually goes up to an i7 and can have four SSD drives in a chassis that's smaller and lighter than the Apple machine. Anandtech prefer to ignore the Z series and Sony in general, apparently Sony wouldn't give them one but the fact that these machines existence makes an article like this nonsense probably has a large part in it. I think it's laughable reading such rubbish as the MBP having no equal etc. in the PC market when Sony comfortably exceed it, I'm using an older Z series which trashes the MBP in pretty much every area going. Its smaller and lighter using a carbon fibre chassis, I'd put the build quality of the Vaio as better, it packs in a 3Ghz C2D processor, blu-ray writer and 1600x900 screen none of which the Apple offers. With the 256GB SSD I was able to buy it brand new for the same price as an entry level Macbook as it's an older model which is still far better than the Apple version.John
slickr - Friday, October 15, 2010 - link
How about Apple actually focused on what IS important - the CPU, GPU, Battery, HD, etc.. instead of few gimmicky "features" if you can even call them that that people droll over. You have to be pretty stupid to think that few gimmicks are more valuable than a newer, faster, quieter and at the same time cheaper notebook.While the outside design is nice, there are hundreds of notebooks out there that are cheaper, faster, more powerful and better looking than the Apple macbook pro 13.
xype - Friday, October 15, 2010 - link
Cheaper, faster, more powerful yes, better looking no. Not hundreds, not dozens and, at best, a couple, _if_ you simply like a different style (ie, black case, shiny case, etc).As for the "stupid" comment: it has nothing to do with stupid, and everything to do with priorities. And, if we're being honest, Apple seems to hit a sweet spot with the general populace there. And they know that will sell them more laptops and pleasing the 0.5% of the market that is made of hardcore geeks.
Piet Boer Mienjong - Thursday, December 30, 2010 - link
I think Apple does focus on what is important. How cool it will look when using it at the local coffee place.