MBP 13" as powerful as PC with i3 ?

Hello,

I'm on the market for a laptop for photo editing (when I'm traveling).

I don't want anything bigger than 13.3" or 14". I'm lukewarm on the MBP 13" as the chip in there is still a Core2Duo. However, the salesman at the store yesterday told me that because the OS was so much better than Windows, the performance of that Core2Duo was identical to a PC with an i3.

Do you have an opinion on this ?

Thanks !

 

The way OS X handles its hardware components is very different than Windows.

The 13" is a great photo editing companion, even with the Core2Duo.

I'm sure people will start bickering about i3s and Windows PCs and what-not, but the bottom line is that you will be able to do pretty powerful photo editing stuff on the 13" MBP.

I actually have a friend who's a journalist and he swears by it. And he has the old model with 2GB of ram and all that stuff..

So yeah, you'll get a kick out of the new ones even though they don't sport the Core i processors.

 

This is interesting, thanks.

Have you ever seen tests done between the MBP 13 and some PCs with i3s, in terms of benchmarks ?

 

Benchmarks are useless IMHO. It's just going to show you wether a CPU runs faster than the other. It's not going to show you the overall stability of OSX, battery life, build quality and screen quality of the MBPs and so forth..

I'd say go into an Apple Store if you have one near by and test a computer out. I'm sure you can try out Aperture and I've even seen Photoshop CS4 installed on some of the demo units.

If the performance suits you there you have it.

 

The i3 is a faster processor but there is more to it than just once piece. As mentioned the OS works differently and then there are other things that effect performance such as RAM, hard drive and graphics card. You would be better served to look at a total package than a single piece of it.

That being said, another thing to look at is what you will be doing with the system. Do you already own or are planning to buy photo editing software? Do you use MS Office?

 

I already own a fair number of softwares. The main one is (and will be on this laptop) Adobe Lightroom. My license allows me to install it on 2 computers. I also use MS Office indeed (I assume Word or Excel docs prepared on a MBP will be fully compatible with MS Office on a PC ???)

 

If your doing serious photo editing you probably will want a faster processor than the C2D in the MBP 13 as the new i Series processors do a better job in photo/video editing. If you simply must have a Mac I suggest you move up to the 15 inch, the 13 inch isn't worth it IMO.

 

Have you ever even touched a RAW file in Photoshop CS4?

Seriously, too many people have the impression that photo editing is this power intensive process that can only be done on the elite of the elite machines currently available.

I mean, sure it might take 10 seconds to render an HDR image (The most intensive photo editing I'm aware of) ... Does that mean photo editing is impossible on the 13"?

You people just hear some thing from someone or read it from a blog somewhere online and pass it around as fact.

The 13" is perfectly fine for photo editing, now this of course is assuming that OP doesn't do Billboards and all that for a living.

 

Core i3 is a better processor family than C2D, regardless of how minimal ... That's just fact, it's newer technology and the specifications say so.

However, a better processor doesn't mean a better computer. I really wish more people understood this. It's the number one cause of confusion for some reason.

 

The i3 is a faster processor, no matter what the salesman tells you. If he's telling you that because of the OS, the system "feels" faster, maybe, but how "snappy" your system feels has almost nothing to do with the processor but mainly the hard disk.

 

If your most complicated editing task is removing your old girlfiend from your old prom picture, the 13" MBP would work fine. The point is that you won't feel the difference unless you are using it in a professional setting. Then I would recommend something other than the MBP 13".

Bronsky

 

didn't you know that Photo Editing on a computer is brand new.. it was impossible to do before the Core i3/5/7 came out.

 

I mentioned HDR photography and you're talking about cropping people out of pictures, are you serious?

Look, the 13" is much more capable than simple layering and masking. I know serious photo editing is a niche hobby and so not many people really no the details but the fact of the matter is it's no big deal.

Over the years people have just come to use photo editing as an excuse to buy a more expensive computer ... The algorithms involved are so efficient that the difference between a C2D and an i5 is fraction of seconds (assuming you're working on a JPEG). More than anything it's your Hard Drive that will limit you when opening huge RAW files or stitched Panoramas.

OP if you really want to believe that processing power is more important than a screen with decent contrast ratio and color accuracy when it comes to photo editing then by all means buy something with an i3 processor.

The 15" is not necessary for photo editing, sure it's more powerful but it performs just a little better than the 13" for these kind of tasks.

I have a desktop with the following specs:

i7-860 processor
8 GB RAM (1333 MHz ... Frequency of RAM doesn't matter but just for inclusiveness)
2 TB 7200 RPM (RAID 0 Config)
ATI HD5770 (1GB VRAM)

I don't notice a big difference in my photo editing on my MBP 13, and I work with RAW files.

 

This is very interesting, as we seem to have similar use of our laptops. I also work with RAW files exclusively (using Lightroom, DXO and CS2). I have a Core2Duo at home on my PC and it works fine, except LR is sometimes slow with the brush and to create 1:1 previews (even if my HD is fast and has a lot of space left).

The displays seem so much better with Mac that I think I'll stick with that brand but the question remains on MBP 13 and MBP 15. The 2 issues I have with the MBP 13 (on top of the question above about whether a Core2Duo is good enough) is that I can't get an antiglare display (not an option on the Apple store online) and I can't get a 7200rpm HD (5400rpm only).

 

The closest competitor to the Macbook Pro 13" I see on the market is the Asus U30JC and even in benchmarks, the Macbook Pro edged it

As for real world performance? I think an OSX experience triumphs a Windows experience by a mile. Just all subjective.

 

Yeah the anti glare is a shame, it's just something I've learned to deal with. I often have to adjust the lighting in my room so I can see the screen and not my reflection.

As for the hard drive, just buy one off newegg and change it yourself. If you feel like treating yourself you could even opt for an SSD ... Although with RAW files you will run out of space quickly as SSDs are very expensive and most people will only be able to afford, at most, 256 GB comfortably.

I don't really have issues with CS4, Photomatix or LR ... I use OnyX pretty often to keep my HDD in good shape, but that only does so much ... Eventually you'll find yourself wanting a faster HDD. I assure you though, it's not the processor, C2D is very capable of handling the algorithms that CS4 and LR throw at it.

 

I wouldn't use the Asus unless I have access to a good external monitor. It's a fine machine, I just wish Asus would splurge a little on their displays.

 

Have you ever used photoshop?

I am running the current version of photoshop on my macbook 13 with no problems what so ever. I've opened up the same files and same rendering techniques on far superior machines(i5 machine) and noticed no difference what so ever.

Video editing though is a different story.

 

I bought my sister one of those new Sony EB series laptops with a core i3 processor. Sure, the CPU is newer and has more power but what good is that power if the computer is loaded with all that bloatwares?

The computer felt slow even when I got rid of all that crap preinstalled. She didn't like it, and she exchanged it for the base 13" MBP.

THe difference was night and day...even with a slower CPU. Better trackpad, better quality, screen, and overall usability was better according to her, and it only cost $200 more than the Sony.

So you really have to look at the laptop holistically when comparing a PC vs MAC.

 

I thought this article was quite informative about the C2D vs. i3 debate in the new 13" MBP.

So why didn't Apple give the 13" MacBook Pro some Arrandale love?

 

So what happens in ~Nov-Dec when Intel has ramped down C2D tech and Acer has hit the $499 price point on Core i5 machines? Will Apple make the 330M fit then and everyone be happy or will they ditch the 320 and tell everyone Intel HD is suddenly the bomb for great battery life/light 3D gaming?

That article seems to skip on the picture of the Core i5 powered 15" Mobo which shows a HM55 chipset(lot smaller than the 9400 since memory controller is on the CPU now) which doesn't require active cooling and could easily be moved further away. If they shrank the battery a few mm (giving it the same battery life as the '09 model), they could easily fit the chip in and drop an i3. Given the pricepoint that Asus offers the U30JC at (900 so ~33% more to hit the bottom 13" MBP), they likely could have fitted the same i3/310M combo w/o having to get Apple apologists into a giant PR campaign about how benevolent Apple is to not burden us w/ Core 2010 tech and instead profiteer on recycled chips from 2008.

And yeah, editing pictures won't be a problem on the 13" b/c most people aren't editing 100MP stitched raw photos. Only major drawback is the small screen size.

 

either the Intel/nvidia lawsuit will be done and nvidia will be making good chipsets to use... or they'll redesign the MBPs to be able to fit in a discrete GPU.

no thanks.. C2D with the 320m is better than a i3 with a 310m overall.

 

So put in a 330M on the top end 13" and charge $1600. If Apple had used a Core i3/5|310M and never made a C2D|320M version, few people would be outright complaining. This honestly isn't a we're not sure its physically possible question...its a market segmentation/profit margin question that I think Apple answered quite well. But for some reason people have gone back to justify the decision as one where a Core i/dedicated GPU simply isn't feasible in the 13" form factor where other manufacturers have done quite successfully (and gotten them to market more quickly).

 

your using "form factor" very loosely.

I could make a 13" form factor machine with dual Core i7s and SLI video cards...

Its not about '13" form factor' is about Apples design of a 13" Macbook Pro. There is no easy way for them to have upgraded and used a Core i3 and a 310m without severely reducing battery life... because of being less efficient and cutting back a lot of battery size.

Apple of course can make a decent machine in 13" size with a GPU and a i3/i5, but its going to take some major redesigning, which they haven't finished yet... and they want to keep uniform looks, so they have to get the 15" and 17" done too so they all look very similar.

I think it was good for them to focus on the 13" being more about a portable machine and less about high end performance.

 

Maybe you should apply to work at Apple so you can show Jobs how it could be done so easily.

 

I don't have to...Dell, Sony, and Asus have demonstrated that you can put a Core i/dedicated GPU into a sub 5lb 13" laptop w/o having to charge 2k (well except Sony). I'm not discounting the capabilities of Apple engineers given they've got an impressive track record and the Core i packaging isn't much bigger. If Apple kept a 7hr battery on the 13", most users wouldn't be complaining.

All I am saying is they retained C2D as a marketing/segmentation strategy and I think its a very good move on their part. Why doesn't the latest Macbook have a SD card slot still in 2010 when the otherwise spec identical MBP has one? Why didn't they offer the 2.6ghz in the 13" previously? Did the chip change from mid last year until now? I'm under the strong belief that Apple will release a Core i powered 13" either when Intel stops making the C2D or sales start to mature/erode as other brands move further into Core i technology. Apple lets you know that if a 2.6C2D isn't enough...the 2.4 i5 15" is only $400 more.

 

I wasn't arguing anything one way or the other, I just found the article to provide a different, informative viewpoint. That's all.

 

I haven't looked at all the manufacturers but the only Dell I easily found was the Vostro 3300. That particular system is almost 1/4 inch thicker and is only under 5 lbs with the 4 cell battery (~3 hours of battery with the lowest i3). From what I've read the Vostro has thinner aluminum which results in screen and keyboard flex. There are always going to be differences between systems (quality, price, service, specs) but you need to look at the whole picture. As long as they are still selling, Apple doesn't really NEED to change much.

 

For some people, such a task can't be done quickly enough!

 

Thank you! Finally an informed voice in the crowd! I don't mind the occasional Mac vs. PC debate, but any type of civil discussion requires that people come prepared to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the subject!

 

No, they likely found better value and cost savings in the C2D/320M combo as opposed to an i3/310M combo which would've trumped the former only in mulicore benchmarks. The P8600/320M in the end turned out to be a winner. There are no "apologists." The 320M is a more capable integrated graphics chipset and as mentioned earlier, the i3 is only negligibly better for photoshop. For everything else, the P8600 incidentally benchmarks and runs quicker.


EDIT: It's interesting how the Apple critics seem to always feel a moral obligation to visit Apple forums and call Mac buyers "apologists" and preach to them that they're being ripped off via the insidious schemes of the antichrist Steve Jobs. Funny how that works.

 

I'm not saying they're ripped off...I'm saying Apple made a shrewd marketing decision to keep the C2D b/c it fills the market need w/o pesky engineering costs (every product manager's dream). How exactly do you define value in this situation? Can you reasonably argue that Apple is providing a better value (for the customer) w/ the 2010 13" MBP than the 2009 equivalent by holding the price point and providing an incremental upgrade when the majority of the market has gone to Core 2010 technology? I'm perfectly fine w/ Apple reducing costs and toeing the line on price...they're here to make money and there's nothing wrong w/ their strategy as long as they're providing return to shareholders (I hold a bit myself).

I'm shopping for an ultra portable machine for my g/f right now to replace her netbook/ipod touch/home laptop setup and have considered a 13" for her b/c it is a perfectly capable machine albeit a bit too chunky for a flight attendant. She not a fan of Thinkpads, Latitudes, or Asus so its this or Sony. The iPad can't render her scheduling website which crosses it off the list and another netbook probably won't be much of an improvement. At the other end the Vaio Z is a bit too nice and I'd want to keep that one for myself. The C2D 2.4 is plenty of processor for most people but doesn't cut it when you're a gadget enthusiast always looking for the next great thing.

I'm not here for a moral obligation outside that I'm doing my due diligence before dropping 1k+ for a new machine. I just find it funny everyone references the same article proclaiming the engineering challenges when other companies have done just that in similar chassis/price point specs. When the engineering is proven off, they'll resort to various benchmarks despite the eventuality that Apple will in fact have to ditch C2D when it hits EOL and embrace Core i chips in the 13" form factor. If Apple had gone i3/310M, people would happily buy them just the same and Apple would have to spend a fair chunk on engineering rather than stretching the C2D MBP design another 6m-1yr w/o anything to show for it.

As for the benchmark differences...there's probably minimal noticeable differences between either setup and both are likely limited by the 5,400rpm drives and 12x8 resolution more than anything else. Real world people probably barely notice the difference from a Core i7 and the old 3.06C2D but Apple's more than happy to highlight those suddenly ever important benchmarks b/c now they're on par w/ the rest of the PC world.

 

Well...that's actually a good question, one that I'll have to answer in great lengths. The processor got a slight bump-up, admittedly not something too many peopl are holding a block party to celebrate. But the integrated GPU got a nice boost which led to the advertised 10-hour battery life boost. The SD and the mini-display port have also gotten positive reception. Altogether, those improvements may/may not be the reason they're still selling like hotcakes. But here's the problem: The CPU isn't the only part of a notebook's value. Anyone who's used a premium-quality notebook should know there are other considerations which I address in a moment.


Here is my theory. The internal parts aren't the main reason the MBP 13 continues to sell well. Other reasons include the thin/light form factor, the screen, the battery life and the touchpad. The fact that there aren't any other thin, solidly constructed unibody notebooks at the 13.3" segment with a solid touchpad (i.e. 2-finger scrolling works) says more about PCs than about Macs. As long as Apple is able to silently tote itself as the notebook manufacturer that excels in these areas, Apple more or less has a monopoly thanks to the laziness of the big PC makers.


Let's face the cold hard truth. There just aren't any proven alternatives in the PC market that unquestionably beat out the MBP 13 in ALL the above mentioned areas or at least rival it closely. The closest so far has been the Envy 13 whose touchpad functionality turned out to be a complete joke and the cause of many Envy 13 owners' hair-pulling.


So if there isn't a notebook out there with a high-quality TN panel, an excellent multitouch touchpad, solid build construction, excellent customer support reputation (Applecare) and an amazing battery life all in one package that kicks aside the MBP 13 in all areas decisively, the MBP simply wins out, inferior CPU or not. Sorry, but even as someone who occasionally bashes on Apple fanboys out of sheer boredom, this is just one reality I encountered in my 3-month notebook hunt. I've had Lenovo fanboys on my grad school forums getting pissy at me for politely debunking their worship of the T410 as a Macbook Pro 13 killer. A brief video review and a T410 reviews show that (1) Lenovo kinda compromised on some areas of build construction which loses it points and (2) the AC adapter tacks on another 1.5 pounds, making the Lenovo T410 about almost 7 pounds to carry as opposed to the MBP 13's 5 pounds including the power source.

At least we can agree the MBP 13 in this regard is fine for the average joe (or in this case jane) up to the point where heavy video-rendering is required. Movie-making is where it's almost a must to look beyond C2D processors and toward i5/i7 processors.

Whether or not Apple would've required extra $ and brainpower to shove an i3 into a thin 13.3" unibody is irrelevant to a notebook customer's purchase considerations. That's something for Apple executives to worry about.


At the end of the day, it's a matter of what exactly we use our notebooks for and whether that notebook fulfills that need. People aren't claiming they would've bought an i3/310M-equipped MBP 13.3. I've been surfing NBR on and off and I can tell you that is NOT the crux of the argument. It's really an issue of whether (1) An i3/310M combo would've been that much more of an improvement and also (2) Whether the P8600/320M is still worth buying. Most MBP 13 buyers on NBR felt it really wasn't a huge difference, at least not one large enough to justify buying an oh-so-evil PC. In my personal experiences, the P8600/320M combo worked fine. Youtube vids loaded snappily, Windows programs in VMware loaded up fine, and I was able to open up several browser windows and tabs at once. An i5 processor would've been nice, but not necessary.


So in sum: Most MBP 13 (2010) owners don't seem to care too much about processor upgrades that don't seem to matter in real-world mundane applications, especially when much of the focus is on indexes such as touchpad fluidity, display quality, form factor, weight, battery life, build construction, trustworthy customer service, and in some cases, easy-to-use software. As long as the multiplicity of factors stated place the Macbook Pro above other alternatives, the MBP 13 continues to present itself as a compelling option.


But once again...I'm hardly celebrating in my awareness of this. Seriously. It really bothers me as a 10-year notebook user that it took the PC industry this long to take a hint from Apple's Macbook/Pro sales successes. Among all things, it ticks me off that they've refused to wean themselves off of Synaptics touchpad software. My notebooks over the past 10+ years made by the likes of Compaq, HP, Dell, and Asus are testament of the PC notebook industry's laziness when it came to touchpad quality. All relied on gimped up touchpad software by Synaptics. Let's not even get started with shoddy build construction and poor customer support quality!

It's only recently with competitors like the Dell Adamo and the HP Envy we've seen a new focus on design and form factor. HP's acquisition of Palm underscores HP's newground awareness of a need for a focus on software/hardware integration and I hope it's a sign HP's preparing to turn things around in the notebooks and not just in the tablets.

I've got my hopes pinned on the HP Envy 14. I've felt and used the Envy 15 (Gen2) briefly and can attest to its thin and light form factor and a solid build construction. The screen quality is nice and the heating issues were mostly solved from Gen1. I am expecting the Envy 14 to incorporate all these improvements. The one deal-sealer that that will make all the difference in my decision to buy it is the unknown multitouch touchpad quality. I hear that Gen2 simply ironed out some of the problems, but 2-finger scrolling is still horrific. If the rumors concerning Synaptics's recent move to release a clickpad for the Envy 14 with a higher levels of multitouch coherence and easy 2-finger scrolling are fact, I'm sold. Though it'll be about 0.75 pounds heavier than the 13.3" MBP, at 14.5," this could prove to be a real MBP 13 competitor with superior specs fit for moderately heavy gaming!

 

The Envy 14 is more of a competitor to a MBP 15 than the MBP 13. Besides that I agree with you for the most part zeth.

 

Yeah, you're probably right. I WOULD get a MBP 15 if it weren't so darn pricey. A slightly larger screen size would be nice. I wouldn't care too much if it came with the P8600/320M combo for a few hundred. From what I understand, SC2 can probably run it fine.


It's that...unless someone here has $800 in extra pocket cash to donate to a certain notebook shopper.

 

That's the annoying part mostly, the 13" screen is just a pain when it comes to editing large images on the pixel level.

 

"apologist" isn't a bad word or insult... some people try to use it as such, mainly because of the history of the word with Christianity, but there is nothing negative about it. Its someone who tries to defend a point of view with logic and reason... it doesn't mean "apologize" like some people believe.

 

Considering 10 years ago professionals were editing high-res images and movies on G3 and G4 Macs/Pentiums without any problems I would say the "low-end" core2duo MBP is still very capable.

 

Im really impressed with my macbook pro 13. installed windows 7 and 3dmark reached a friggin 4789 3dmark score! mw2, lfd2, is smooth as silk. just wow! i really dont regret exchanging my asus g60 for one of these.2.4 core duo is fast as heck. 320m is crazy integrated.

 

My 2 cents:

Is the MBP 13" as powerful as PC with i3 ?

I've owned several Macs and PC notebooks. I haven't noticed any performance differences between OS X and Windows 7. Booting, launching apps, opening windows takes virtually the same time. Apple's Spotlight seems to work a little faster than it's Windows counterpart though.

For all my work the CPU isn't the bottleneck, the HDD often is.

The difference between Core i3 and Core 2 Duo can only be noticed during CPU intensive tasks, which I rarely perform.

People generally spend too much money on their CPUs while they would benefit way more from buying an SSD. People are buying Core i5 laptops with 5400rpm hard drives. Crazy in my opinion.

 

OP if you haven't made your decision, you might want to take a look at the new Dell Precisions ... Their screens are compatible with adobe rgb, something that the macbook pros cannot do.

It's not really a big deal but I wish my macbook pro could display adobe rgb.

Edit: Or you could just buy a Macbook Pro and use an external monitor (13" is too small anyway) for your photo editing.

 

Adobe RGB isn't a big deal. If you edit video and pictures on a display using Adobe RGB they may not look right on most other displays.

 

You can get her a C2D Z and get yourself a Core i Z. Used C2D Z price is really competitive right now...

 

True, sRGB is your safest bet for images intended to be viewed on the web. I just don't know if OP intends to print his.