Macbook Pro 15 High vs Low-end

Hello,

The difference between the new macbook pros 15'' is very big? It justify to buy the high end that costs 400 more?

Thanks

 

Only justified if you need the faster graphics card. For most people the base model is perfect. Unless you play high-end PC games, the HD6750 will be plenty.

 

Most people will never need a CPU faster than the $1800 model. The GPU is now barely better instead of vastly better. You can get the upgraded screens on the low-end as well as the high end. With the 6750M in the lower model, I suspect that the $1800 model is the better choice for the vast, vast majority of buyers.

 

Whats the difference between the two graphic cards for gaming? Games like Fifa12, and starcraft?

 

The 6770M has an advantage, but not nearly $400 worth. The 6750M should be able to handle those games at high anyway, so if those are the games you play, you'd probably never notice the difference.

AMD Radeon HD 6770M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

AMD Radeon HD 6750M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

 

Both cards can run Crysis 2 on high, and that's a pretty resource intense game.

 

The difference is like high vs ultra on starcraft.

 

Maybe on some games, but for Crysis 2 on Ultra:

HD 6750M: 12 FPS
HD 6770M: 13.4 FPS.

Definitely not worth $400 more to me.

 

If I recall correctly, the actual visual difference between high and ultra in SC2 isn't dramatic enough to notice except in side-by-side screenshots. It's not something you'll really notice during the course of gameplay, even though ultra requires significantly more GPU power.

 

Would the difference be noticeable in other places such as 3D Graphic programs? Also is the slightly faster processor worth the money?

 

There may be some, just as there's some difference in high-end gaming, but not a lot, and not nearly as much as a business-oriented GPU might give you.

I bet 99% of buyers wouldn't notice the difference in CPU use even in back-to-back tests. The 2.2GHz quad-core i7 is blazingly-fast, and the HDD or other issues besides the CPU are going to be the performance bottleneck for nearly everything you do.

Honestly, unless you work in a specialized industry and already know that you need that particular CPU or that particular GPU for some reason, you're probably just as well served by the $1800 model.

 

I have the 6750 (1gb) and I run on Ultra pretty much everything.

With the 6750 (512mb) you can run it on Ultra BUT with high textures, NOT Ultra textures.

Not really sure why Apple put a 512 mb graphics card in a $1.8K laptop in 2011.

As far as CPU your Matlab and Mathematica calculations will be about 10% faster. So if your running 2 hour long calculations, you get like 12 minutes.

 

I was planning on getting the high end but now I guess the only decision I have to make is the Glossy or Anti-Glare...

Or do you guys think it would be worth waiting for the 2012 model??

 

It will obviously (hopefully) have better specs.

If you are happy with your current computer, wait.

If you aren't upgrade. There will always be something better on the horizon. I personally always like upgrading like 1-2 months after a product releases so bugs are worked out and I don't have the problem of a new product in less then 6 months. But that is just my personal taste.

 

By the way, i was thinking in a SSD of 256gb, but wouldnt i see a lack of space on it? I mean i must always have a external disk with me because my computer doesnt have memory for "nothing"..

 

get bigger than 256.. or get an OptiBay kit and replace the Optical drive with a hard drive for storage. Its usually much easier to use an external optical drive the few times you need it than an external hard drive.

 

I think they will do a chasis redesign next year. It is anyones guess what they will do, but I bet they go to 1600x900 on their low end 15" standard to get the wide screen format without losing vertical pixels.

If that is true, by waiting for 2012, you will get a little extra width on your screen, but the screens are already 900p high on the base model which is the most important thing to me. On most websites and other reading, extra width is almost always wasted. If you are a designer, it is nice though to allow you more toolbar space.

Everyone else has already moved to a widescreen format LCD to save on parts because the similarity to the HDTVs and the toolings the factorys use to make the parts, and apple will to.

If profits and cost savings are there, apple will be there also.

 

It's the GPU, not the GPU memory, that primarily determines performance (classic example: the 1.5 GB 555M and the 3.0 GB 555M in the Alienware M14x perform exactly the same). The 6750M is a very good GPU.

And I suspect you'd need to go to side-by-side screenshots to determine the difference between (1) ultra with high textures, and (2) ultra with ultra textures, in most games. It's not going to be glaringly obvious during gameplay.

 

Extra width is really great for working with two windows side-by-side, and I think a decent number of people do that. As you pointed out, both 1440x900 and 1600x900 offer 900 vertical pixels, so the normal argument in favor of 16:10 (more vertical space is better) doesn't apply here.

 

Yep. And it may also let you have a few more tabs in your browser before it limits the text on the tab labels..

 

So you are saying that is better to buy low end, and for the next 2 years i dont need a change in my computer?

 

I absolutely think that the low-end MBP 15 with the 6750 makes more sense for most people than the high-end MBP 15. And yes, I think it would keep you happy for two years.

 

My macbook pro would be to watch some movies on tv, on it too, playing that two games or something similar, and programming with eclipse, netbeans, dreamweaver, and doing some simple work with photoshop. Maybe i will use it to virtualize some simples applications in windows..

 

It depends. There is a limit on how much GPU memory can help a particular GPU.

1.5 555m is already too much for a GT 555m.

On the other hand if you gave it 256mb you would see a performance drop.

Certain cards can only use certain amounts of memory well. Beyond that it is pointless. However if you put in too little memory, you will see some sort of a performance drop. 1gb is perfect for the 6750, 512 is a little low.

 

Would I pay $50 more to 1 gb instead of 512 mb for the 6750? Absolutely. Would I pay $400 more? Not a chance in hell. Even though I'd like to see a little more than 512 mb, I definitely think that the $1,799 model offers far better value for most buyers than the $2,199 model.

 

Does the 5400 rpm disk performance is very low when compared with a 7200rpm?

 

I'm not denying that I just said cutting it down to 512 mb was disappointing, I don't think 1gb would cost that much more.

 

I disagree.

Its not pixel width that a 16:10 gives you, its screen real estate. Think about it this way: per your argument a 56" 1080p TV and a 32" 1080p tv give you the same amount of vertical space.

Just having 900 vertical pixels on a 15" screen =/ a 16:10 screen at all, because the screen is shorter.

I also think Apple likes how it makes their computers look more compact if they go with 16:10 vs 16:9, and Apple will spend more for appearance.

 

That takes an extreme example that isn't remotely what I was talking about. I'm talking about a 1440x900 15.4" screen versus 1600x900 15.6" screen. There's not a lot of practical advantage to the 16:10 setup when comparing those two screen configurations.

 

Yeah there is a decent amount you get an 8.16" screen vs a 7.45" screen so you get 0.61 more vertical inches, which is a good amount. Interestingly enough you only lose 0.4" horizontal inches.

Also the idea of aspect ratio has nothing to do with resolution, aspect ratio influences how you view web pages and things like that.

 

One of you is arguing for the sake of arguing.

Vertical pixels are great for productivity, hence why your TV analogy doesn't work.

On the other hand, 1600x900 is a better display [especially for media use], albeit true productivity would be similar.

 

Thats why they should go with 1920*1200 IPS LED.

Then they can be like "higher pixel density then the competition" and "#1 screen on any laptop in existence". I could see Apple doing something sort of similar, they are always willing to pay for things like screens and unibody enclosures over pure specs.

I think with a 1920*1200 IPS LED screen they could sell a lot of 15" MBPs on screen quality alone.

Also I disagree on the fact that vertical length (in physical dimensions doesn't matter). Isn't a 22" screen more productive then a 21" LCD? A 23" over a 21" is even more productive, even though typically they are all 1080p monitors. I can fit more things in there that I can actually see with my native eye.

 

cant see it happening for 4 reasons.
1 very high screen cost on screens over 13" currently

2 a 10 bit IPS screen like the DC2 can not be supported with graphics switching with an intel IGP ( Ivy wont either ) only the 6 bit IPS can be driven with current IGP's hence why my x220 has a " low grade " screen vs my elitebooks

3 power draw, IPS screens pull more juice on their own as well as on the GPU and LVDS circuit.

4 the actual panel glass is thicker, and there us no room for it unless you make a thicker screen assembly for IPS models, which is against apples thinner and lighter mantra

 

Crysis 2
6750 — 38 fps on high
6770 — 40 fps on high

I doubt the difference in sc2 is high vs ultra.

 

Its not for processing purposes, but texture storage because of only 512 memory on the card. I bet the old high end macbook pro can do it.

 

Hello all,

I'm asking myself the same question: is it worth to go for the 6750 1gb or 512?
Everyone here seems to say "no way" for the 1gb. I trust you, no offense, but is anyone got a link or something, cause when i do a research on Notebookcheck, i can only find 1 model for the 6750m, so it's hard to compare with the 1gb one... any help is welcome!

 

So you'd rather have the highest possible pixel density on a 15 inch yet at 1080p you'd prefer a 23 inch (lower pixel density) over a 21 (higher pixel density)? Isn't that kind of contradictory?

I think that trying to cram as many pixels as possible into a screen really isn't that necessary. There has to be a delicate balance in the sizes of the various things (screen size and screen resolution), which ultimately regulates the average distance from your eyes to the screen. I know that my reaction to my two laptops' screens is completely different. Although both are 1280x800, one is 12 inch and the other 14 inch.

 

Also to get back on track with the graphics card mydriaze I am curious as to which one to get. Yes $400 is a lot but would it almost be worth it to buy a same what future proof machine so hold on too for a few years at the least...

 

Your machine isn't future proof.

The gains from the 6770m vs 6750m are going to go down as the years progress. As new tech comes out all older graphics cards head towards the same: not able to run. Differences start to go down as well as game designers no longer write their code for those cards.

Futuring proofing would be investing the $400 in something safe and then taking the $450 it will be in 2-3 years and putting it towards a new computer.

If you sold the MBP for like $700, your at $1150, so thats the best form of future proofing, TBH.

 

the difference is so miniscule and they are both mid range cards. get the 6750 as xfire said trying to futureproof a systems GPU at all us laughable unless:

1: it can be physically upgraded ( MXM card )
2: it us currently close to top end as hardware tends to change rapidly.

your much better off saving the difference for a faster unit in a year or 2 vs putting 400 into such a small upgrade that can easily be matched by an overclock

 

Futureproofing never works. Technology moves too fast. Better to buy something less expensive now, that meets your needs now, and you'll be able to afford the next best thing when the next best thing comes along.

Someone who buys a $1200 laptop every two years is better able to keep up with technology than someone who buys a $2400 laptop every four years.

 

I was playing on medium with some things set to high else it cant handle 2v2 endgame with 800 food on the screen

 

Before doing that, I'd find out if the optical bay's sata connectors support SATA III, if not it's a waste of money replacing the optical drive with an ssd. Save the ssd for the primary hdd connection and get a plain old 550+ gb sata II hdd for the optical drive replacement.

 

current Macs do not do 6's in the optibay, only the primary hook up... the optibay connection is a 3. Thats why I said replace the optical drive with a hard drive... I didn't say put the SSD there.