Done for 2009: The Holiday MacBook Pro Roundup
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 10, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
And The Story Begins
Traditionally the notebooks with the largest screens are the least attractive, have the worst battery life and are heavy. They're also usually cheaper than their smaller brethren to give people a reason to buy them.
Take a look at what Dell and HP offer with a 17-inch screensize:
| 17.3-inch Notebooks | Dell Studio 17 | HP Pavillion dv7t Quad Edition |
| CPU | Intel Core i7 720QM (1.6GHz, up to 2.8GHz Turbo) | Intel Core i7 720QM (1.6GHz, up to 2.8GHz Turbo) |
| Memory | 4GB DDR3-1066 | 4GB DDR3-1066 |
| HDD | 250GB 7200RPM | 320GB 7200RPM |
| Video | ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 1GB | NVIDIA GeForce GT 230M 1GB |
| Optical Drive | 8X Slot Load DL DVD +/-R | 8X Slot Load DL DVD +/-R |
| Screen Resolution | 1600 x 900 | 1600 x 900 |
| Battery | 9-cell 85Whr | 8-cell ??WHr |
| Dimensions (W x D x H) | 16.28" x 11.04" x 1.1" - 1.54" | 16.2" x 10.9" x 1.37" - 1.70" |
| Weight | 7.08 lbs (6-cell battery) | 7.74 lbs |
| Price | $1099 | $1069.99 |
In both cases you're looking at over 1" thick at the thinnest point, and in the case of the HP system it goes up to 1.7" thick. Both machines start at 7 lbs and don't offer higher than 1080p resolutions. In fact, all the larger screen is useful for is reducing DPI as you can get the same resolution screen in 15-inch and 16" models. The hardware is usually fast and affordable, both machines cost less than $1000.
The 17-inch MacBook Pro is a bit different.
At 0.98" thick, it's only 0.03" thicker than the 13-inch or 15-inch MacBook Pro. And that's a constant thickness from front to back. The impact on how it feels is tremendous. It's the first 17-inch notebook I've used that doesn't make me want to laugh at first sight. It honestly just looks and feels like a slightly bigger 15-inch machine.
| 17.3-inch Notebooks | Apple 17-inch MacBook Pro | HP Pavillion dv7t Quad Edition |
| CPU | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz | Intel Core i7 720QM (1.6GHz, up to 2.8GHz Turbo) |
| Memory | 4GB DDR3-1066 | 4GB DDR3-1066 |
| HDD | 500GB 5400RPM | 320GB 7200RPM |
| Video | NVIDIA GeForce 9400M (integrated) + NVIDIA GeForce 9600M 512MB (discrete) | NVIDIA GeForce GT 230M 1GB |
| Optical Drive | 8X Slot Load DL DVD +/-R | 8X Slot Load DL DVD +/-R |
| Screen Resolution | 1920 x 1200 | 1600 x 900 |
| Battery | 95Whr | 8-cell ??WHr |
| Dimensions (W x D x H) | 15.47" x 10.51" x 0.98" | 16.2" x 10.9" x 1.37" - 1.70" |
| Weight | 6.6 lbs | 7.74 lbs |
| Price | $2499 | $1069.99 |
It’s also Apple’s most expensive notebook. Starting at $2499, it’s more expensive than the 27” iMac and doesn’t even come with a quad-core processor. You’re paying for the screen size, as you can get the same hardware in the 15” MacBook Pro.
The added size is used for one purpose: a higher screen resolution. Apple offers a single display option with the 17-inch machine: a native 1920 x 1200 panel. It's a 16:10 aspect ratio panel, measuring 17-inch on the diagonal, resulting in a pixel density of 133.2 pixels per inch (PPI).
| 17.3-inch Notebooks | Pixels per Inch |
| Apple 13-inch MacBook Pro | 113.5 |
| Apple 15-inch MacBook Pro | 101.6 |
| Apple 17-inch MacBook Pro | 133.2 |
| Apple 27-inch iMac | 108.8 |
| Apple 30-inch Cinema Display | 101.6 |
| 15-inch 1080p Panel | 141.2 |
That’s more than a 30” display. That's more than the 27" iMac. That's more than any other 17-inch notebook on the market today. Only the 15-inch 1080p panels offer a higher pixel density at 141.2 PPI. It's sharp.
Apple makes the 17-inch MacBook Pro very work-focused, you get a ton of desktop space in a package that's honestly not bulky. I can't stress how pleasant it is to carry around; at a constant thickness of less than 1" it really feels a lot smaller than it is. It's the only 17-inch notebook I'd be willing to take with me.
From left to right: 13-inch, 15-inch, 17-inch MacBook Pro. Note the constant height.
The 17-inch MacBook Pro was the first to use Apple's integrated batteries out of necessity. Apple wanted to build a slim, attractive 17-inch MacBook Pro, and cutting down on battery volume enabled that. A side effect was that the 17-inch model has impressive battery life.
Paired with a 95Whr battery, Apple promised up to 8 hours of battery life - a realistically attainable figure as you'll soon see.
From a hardware perspective the 17” isn’t that much different from the rest of the lineup. The system starts with a NVIDIA GeForce 9400M chipset, adds a separate GeForce 9600M for GPU intensive workloads (3D games, OpenCL apps, etc...) and gives you the option of either a 2.8GHz or 3.06GHz 45nm Core 2 Duo with a 6MB L2 cache. The vast majority of users will find the 9400M is sufficient for their needs. And paired with Snow Leopard, the 9600M in the off state doesn’t sap as much battery power as it did under Leopard.
The machine starts with 4GB of memory, expandable up to 8, and comes with a 500GB 5400RPM SATA drive. SSDs are still only optional from Apple.
The 17” system doesn’t come with an integrated SD card reader but it is the only MacBook Pro to ship with an ExpressCard/34 slot.
From left to right: Power input, Ethernet, FireWire 800, 3 USB, Mini DisplayPort, Line In, Headphone Out, ExpressCard/34
Mini DisplayPort is the only way to connect to an external display, and unfortunately Apple cheeps out and doesn't supply any adapters with the machine. With a 17-inch 1920 x 1200 panel, you'll probably be fine without one though.
About the only thing that the machine is missing is Nehalem, but that won't come until next year.
From left to right: 13-inch, 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pro
The 17” MacBook Pro started a new trend within Apple. Integrate the battery, offer longer battery life and no one will complain. The technology soon waterfalled down to the 15” and 13” models.
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.