2010 MBP in 13" or 2011 MBP in 13"???

Which should I buy? Top end refurbished 2010 MBP for $1020 or low end 2011 MBP for 1199? Price is a contributing factor as well as gaming performance. I would not play games on it often or high end games (mostly real time strategy stuff like Warhammer Dawn of War, ect) but I would like to be able to play some games with decent frame rates. I've read a few accounts of the 2010 being better for gaming but not sure about spending $1000 on a laptop with an old processor (C2D) then again not sure about paying $1200 for a laptop (2011 MBP) that supposedly has top of the line hardware in it but I can't play a 2 year old game on. I've also read of overheating issues with the 2011 MBP. I would use it for normal laptop type duties (minor work related stuff, powerpoints, internet, ect). I know a Windows laptop would probably be better but I've always wanted to get a Macbook. Any help would be appreciated.

 

In bold, you're going to have to decide on this yourself first off. How important is gaming to you? The 320m is only slightly better than the HD3000. In bootcamp it's about 5-10FPS faster on MEDIUM settings. On Lows it's about same or the HD3000 will beat it thanks to the i5/i7 it's paired with, which destroys a similarly clocked C2D.

For me, I game maybe 15% of my laptop usage, the rest I do other things that do not require the GPU nearly at all. So the choice is pretty easy for me, I'd rather have the much better CPU that's 40% better than the C2D than lose 5% in the GPU department. Plus you get newest hardware including thunderbolt - which opens the door for a vidock. If you're a student in the US you get $100 off a MBP so it's $1099 for a new 13" i5. The new SB i5 are on par with the fastest i7 of 2010 models. So yeah, decide how important gaming is to you. Are you playing Dawn of War II? That's a fairly GPU heavy game as well as CPU I imagine on mediums the 320m will do better but I don't think you'll have too much trouble with the Intel HD3000 either if you don't mind turning down a few things. Remember that the settings that only rely on CPU, you can really turn UP those settings and not worry since the new Sandy Bridges are so efficient. For example, on the new 2011 13" i7 I was able to turn up view distance and details to ultra and high respectively b/c they used mainly CPU power and not GPU, and since the newest i7 dual cores are just blazing fast, I had no problems there at all.

 

As previously pointed out, gaming is going to be the one tipping point that you will have to figure out. You could go spend $1000 on a Windows notebook and get a much better gaming experience. I know you want a MacBook Pro but, in all honesty, Mac OS X and gaming have never really gone hand-in-hand. The whole point of buying a MacBook Pro, once you get past the looks, is to run Mac OS X. You shouldn't buy a MacBook Pro if you don't like Mac OS X (ie you are going to run Windows all the time) or plan on doing some heavy gaming. It all depends on your definition of "not very often" when it comes go gaming.

The Intel HD 3000 is actually a capable integrated graphical solution. Overall performance (as in video playback factored in with gaming), under Mac OS X, seems to be better than the previous 320m. Having said that, there are still games that run better on the 320m simply because they take advantage of Nvidia's architecture. There are also other games that run better on the HD 3000 as it can overclock.

As previously stated, the main advantage in switching to Sandy Bridge is in the processor. Although the Intel HD 3000 graphics are a drastic improvement over the GMA 4500MHD option Intel was previously using, the Sandy Bridge processors greatly outperform older Core 2 Duo options and are even better than last year's Core i series processors. The $1500 13" MBP, CPU wise, is more powerful than the $2500 15" Core i7 MBP released last year.

 

Thanks, that helps a lot. I think I'll go with the base 2011 MBP 13"...maybe I've found my "can do everything, go anywhere" laptop finally.

 

Personally... I think its worth it

 

Its funny that the $1500 13" MacBook Pro beats out the top-o-the-line 15" and 17" models from 2010. I would say that even the $1200 MacBook Pro at least ties with last year's 15" and 17" top models. Sandy Bridge really improved. I take it those are Geekbench numbers? I was actually getting a little over 7000 on my 13" Core i7 but that was with 8GB of RAM and not the stock 4GB.

 

Yup, I had the i7 13" for a couple days. Benched 6900 on 32bit and 7400 on 64bit geekbench. Super nice processors. But I ended up wanting the 15" high res and didn't want to spend anymore money so picked up a used one for a great price..

 

They beat them out... except in GPU performance, where the older 15 and 17 totally cream the new 13... the new 13 isn't even remotely close.

 

Right. Still, the HD 3000 isn't as bad as people are making it out to be and the processor leap with Sandy Bridge makes the 13" Core i7 an admirable performer. Its not like Mac OS is saturated with games anyway. Yes, games do exist for Mac OS but Windows has far more titles and hardware. Many developers have even moved to just support consoles over PC/Mac in general. So I really don't think the move to the Intel HD 3000 graphics is that big of a deal especially if processor performance increases so much yet battery life has either been the same or better.

 

yes... my i7 HD3000 combo actually runs a few games in OSX at higher frame rates than my C2D 320m combo did.

 

this was my findings as well. SC2 in OSX ran great and I could even turn up the CPU intensive stuff like physics, lighting, etc.