The MacBook Pro Review (13 & 15-inch): 2011 Brings Sandy Bridge
by Anand Lal Shimpi, Brian Klug & Vivek Gowri on March 10, 2011 4:17 PM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
- Mac
- Apple
- Intel
- MacBook Pro
- Sandy Bridge
What About The 13?
Apple's new 13-inch MacBook Pro received the biggest upgrade of the lot. Last year Apple opted against moving the 13-inch model to Arrandale and instead gave it a beefy GPU and a mildly evolved Core 2 Duo CPU. The presumed public reasoning was Apple didn't like Arrandale's GPU performance and needed a two chip solution to maintain the platform's size hence the NVIDIA GT 330M + Intel Core 2 Duo setup. Internally I'm wondering if there was a small amount of corporate politics being played there. Apple used to get a discount on Intel CPUs in exchange for exclusivity, that agreement expired with Nehalem. When Nehalem hit, Apple had to pay the same price as everyone else for CPUs. Now does the 2010 Core 2 based 13-inch MacBook Pro make more sense? Keeping Intel's flagship CPU out of Apple's highest volume MacBook Pro had to hurt. I wonder if Apple got discounted pricing on Sandy Bridge as a result...
| Evolution of the 13-inch MacBook Pro | Early 2011 | Mid 2010 | Late 2009 |
| CPU | Intel Core i5 2.3GHz (DC) | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.40GHz (DC) | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.26GHz (DC) |
| Memory | 4GB DDR3-1333 | 4GB DDR3-1066 | 2GB DDR3-1066 |
| HDD | 320GB 5400RPM | 250GB 5400RPM | 160GB 5400RPM |
| Video | Intel HD 3000 (integrated) | NVIDIA GeForce 320M (integrated) | NVIDIA GeForce 9400M (integrated) |
| Optical Drive | 8X Slot Load DL DVD +/-R | 8X Slot Load DL DVD +/-R | 8X Slot Load DL DVD +/-R |
| Screen Resolution | 1280 x 800 | 1280 x 800 | 1280 x 800 |
| USB | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| SD Card Reader | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| FireWire 800 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| ExpressCard/34 | No | No | No |
| Battery | 63.5Wh | 63.5Wh | 60Wh |
| Dimensions (W x D x H) | 12.78" x 8.94" x 0.95" | 12.78" x 8.94" x 0.95" | 12.78" x 8.94" x 0.95" |
| Weight | 4.5 lbs | 4.5 lbs | 4.5 lbs |
| Price | $1199 | $1199 | $1199 |
While the 15-inch MacBook Pro is quad-core only, the new 13 is strictly dual-core. You get two options: a 2.3GHz or 2.7GHz dual-core Core i5 or Core i7. In Intel speak it's the Core i5-2410M or the Core i7-2620M (it's no wonder Apple doesn't list model numbers for these things).
The 2011 13-inch MacBook Pro Motherboard
| Apple 13-inch 2011 MacBook Pro CPU Comparison | ||||
| 2.3GHz dual-core | 2.7GHz dual-core | |||
| Intel Model | Core i5-2410M | Core i7-2620M | ||
| Base Clock Speed | 2.3GHz | 2.7GHz | ||
| Max SC Turbo | 2.9GHz | 3.4GHz | ||
| Max DC Turbo | 2.6GHz | 3.2GHz | ||
| GPU Base Clock Speed | 650MHz | 650MHz | ||
| GPU Max Turbo | 1.2GHz | 1.3GHz | ||
| L3 Cache | 3MB | 4MB | ||
| AES-NI | No | Yes | ||
| VT-x | Yes | Yes | ||
| VT-d | No | Yes | ||
| TDP | 35W | 35W | ||
The primary differences between these two parts are clock speed, L3 cache size and AES-NI support once again. The 2.3GHz Core i5 lacks AES-NI, has a 3MB L3 cache and can only turbo up to 2.9GHz. The 2.7GHz Core i5 has AES-NI, a 4MB L3 cache and can turbo up as high as 3.4GHz.
I verified turbo frequencies on the 2.7GHz 13-inch. The highest I saw single core turbo hit was 3.4GHz, and dual core turbo was good for 3.2GHz. There's absolutely no funny business going on here, the dual-core 2.7 is allowed to hit its maximum frequencies.
You'll notice that the 2.7GHz DC chip has the same max single core turbo as the 2.3GHz QC chip from the upgraded 15-inch MacBook Pro. In practice this means that for light workloads the upgraded 15 won't feel any faster than the 13 (or that the 13 will feel as fast as the 15 depending on how you look at it). I'm talking about things like web page load times and application launch/install times. There may even be a slight performance advantage for the 13-inch setup as it's able to turbo up to higher frequencies easier than the quad-core 15. Crank up the threads and you've got a different story entirely of course. There's no replacement for more cores on highly threaded workloads.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
198 Comments
View All Comments
Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, March 11, 2011 - link
Our top picks right now are either the Intel SSD 510 or something based on the SF-1200 controller (e.g. Corsair Force, OCZ Vertex 2). In the next month or so we should see the first wave of SF-2200 drives hit the market (e.g. OCZ Vertex 3). These things should scream. Keep an eye on our Storage section for new drives as we review them:http://www.anandtech.com/tag/storage
Take care,
Anand
phoible_123 - Thursday, March 10, 2011 - link
I purchased the low-end 13" the day it was released, and am super happy with it. I had been waiting for a while for a suitable upgrade to my 2007 White Macbook. I considered getting the last 15" (almost bought it), but I was worried about heat, size, and weight. Turns out that these concerns were justified, but the Sandy Bridge models seem to be much better.The performance of the new 13" is comparable to the old high-end 15". It is noticeably faster than the last-gen 13" (I have one of those at work). I don't really play games on my laptop, so I don't care about graphics (I have a desktop with a GTX460 at home hooked up to my HDTV).
I have played with all of the other laptops, and the build quality on the Macbook is just better than anything else I've seen. No question about it. Every time someone raves about some other laptop, I go to Best Buy and play with it, and I'm always disappointed (usually the keyboard and/or trackpad sucks, or the case is too flexy).
Sure, I could get a faster laptop for less money, but it wouldn't be as good at what i actually use it for (mostly software development). I got the low-end 13", and will use the money I saved to buy an Optibay and 128GB SSD (already upgraded the RAM to 8GB). The only laptop that could potentially beat it is the forthcoming MBA.
kigoi - Thursday, March 10, 2011 - link
ah except for when i bought it this is how it's gone for me too. and except for waiting to max memory if usage needs it. and maybe hoping for a slicker hybrid hard drive solution, something like the momentus xt but with more cache and a variable spindle.i wonder if the i5 model runs cooler than the i7. we stressed it with handbrake, experienced the fan, felt the underside. it didn't seem to get intolerably hot underneath unless there was zero airflow (like, on a bedcover).
oh btw here is a document of the hidden keyboard secrets of the fn key.
http://pludk.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/happy-accide...
kigoi - Friday, March 11, 2011 - link
oops error. the return of the hidden keypad was actually done by a software extension w/o my knowing. pretty thrilling to report that though, while it lasted.kanaka - Thursday, March 10, 2011 - link
I got my 15" AG yesterday and one of the first things i was impressed with was how sturdier the hing was compared to my existing Late 08 model.owbert - Thursday, March 10, 2011 - link
what is the trade offs between high res antiglare option and high (glossy) res display?kanaka - Thursday, March 10, 2011 - link
Glare vs no glare. Also colours are more saturated on the glossy screen. There's also a slight weight difference due to the glass vs no glass situation.mino - Thursday, March 10, 2011 - link
Simple: you trade "Bling!" for usability.gstrickler - Thursday, March 10, 2011 - link
More brightness and color saturation on the glossy screen, but more money better color accuracy, reduced glare, and slightly lower wright on the matte screen. The matte screen is also higher resolution than the standard screen, but you can get the hires screen in glossy or matte.One side benefit of the matte screen, in environments where glare may be a problem on the glossy screen (e.g. The Apple Store, many offices, etc), I find it's necessary to turn up the screen brightness on the glossy to overpower the glare. With the matte screen, I can use a lower screen brightness, which means less power, and better battery life. I'm not sure how much difference since I don't have a MBP with a glossy screen to perform a side by side test, but I estimate it at 15-30 mins.
dwade123 - Thursday, March 10, 2011 - link
The new Sony S is better.