13.3 macbook pro i5 vs. i7

The faster i7 processor is better, you can always add more RAM now or later.

Also the 13" screen is rather tiny, it's glossy and it has poor integrated graphics.

Your better off all around (future proofing etc) with a 2.2 Ghz 15" MacBook Pro with a high res anti-glare screen.

You can add up to 16GB of RAM, faster SSD drives later when their prices come down and really make the machine last with proper care as it already has a powerful CPU and GPU.

Laptops are portable, and thus used in various locations where one can't always control the lighting and glare. A built in anti-glare screen is wonderful. 🙂

ds store wrote:

The faster i7 processor is better, you can always add more RAM now or later.

Also the 13" screen is rather tiny, it's glossy and it has poor integrated graphics.

Your better off all around (future proofing etc) with a 2.2 Ghz 15" MacBook Pro with a high res anti-glare screen.

You can add up to 16GB of RAM, faster SSD drives later when their prices come down and really make the machine last with proper care as it already has a powerful CPU and GPU.

Laptops are portable, and thus used in various locations where one can't always control the lighting and glare. A built in anti-glare screen is wonderful. 🙂

I7 is better only in terms of it being a newer processor not speed as the i5 is more than fast enough for anyone not gaming.

As for the screen, thats user prefrence NOT it being better in terms of use and technical specs. I personally prefer the glossy screen myself as it looks much clearer than the matee screens i've used.

The 16Gb is totally not needed. 8GB is more than enough. Even the experts say 16GB is overkill.

Its cheaper to buy the i5 and an ssd then to get the i7 with an ssd drive. So he needs to consider that too when buying his Mbp and not only technical specs.

jpcwa wrote:

I7 is better only in terms of it being a newer processor not speed as the i5 is more than fast enough for anyone not gaming.

i5 and i7 are Central Processing Untis (CPU's) and 3D games are heavily Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) dependent.

The Intel Core i5 2.3 ghz 2415M used in the 13" MacBook Pro scores 2110 on CPU tests

The Intel Core i7 2.7 ghz 2620M scores 3913 for a 185% increase in performance.

The 13" i5 costs $1200, the 13" i7 costs $1500.

So for $300 more with the i7, one gets a computer that lasts almost twice as long. Better withstanding OS bloat upgrades, more powerful programs etc.

The 13" has poor integrated graphics, where the CPU handles the graphics and there is no GPU.

If one is going to choose the 13", it's better they get the i7 as they will get better graphics than the i5 as well.

Not as good as a dedicated graphics card in the 2.2 -2.3 Ghz 15" MacBook Pro, but slightly better.

As for the screen, thats user prefrence NOT it being better in terms of use and technical specs. I personally prefer the glossy screen myself as it looks much clearer than the matee screens i've used.

My anti-glare screen is a lot better in quality and detail than the 13" MacBook Pro's poor quality glossy ones, and I can see the entire screen in most condiitions.

It's why Apple charges slightly more for these screens, because they are better.

The 16Gb is totally not needed. 8GB is more than enough. Even the experts say 16GB is overkill.

The user has the choice to put UP TO 16GB, which later down the road is a substancial performance increasing option. Right now 16GB is a whopping $1500, 8GB can be had for a $100 or so at Crucial.

Its cheaper to buy the i5 and an ssd then to get the i7 with an ssd drive. So he needs to consider that too when buying his Mbp and not only technical specs.

The SSD isn't a performance "cure all" it's only fast storage.

It won't make a bit of difference how fast the storage is if the CPU (and the GPU) can't handle newer OS's and programs.

With the more powerful CPU and GPU up front, one can later make changes to increase the storage speed, they can't swtich out the CPU/GPU later on witout buying a new machine.

Spend $1200 and 2 years from now have to replace the machine.

Or spend $1500 and 4 years from now have to replace the machine due to a poor GPU.

Or spend $2200 and have a machine that will last 5 -7 years or longer with only a SSD and RAM upgrades.

I think the OP poster said they wanted a machine that lasted 4.5 years like the iMac?

Coming from a iMac with it's large screen and better graphics to a puny integrated graphics 13" MacBook Pro (more like a MacBook really) is going to be rather hard to swallow.

I also think that glare prone screen will become quite a pain in the arse after 4.5 years, and Apple is still selling anti-glare screens. (only the 15" and 17")

Seems the majority of people WANT anti-glare screens.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/05/23/glossy-vs-matte-screens-why-the-pc-indus trys-out-of-touch/

ds store wrote:

jpcwa wrote:

I7 is better only in terms of it being a newer processor not speed as the i5 is more than fast enough for anyone not gaming.

i5 and i7 are Central Processing Untis (CPU's) and 3D games are heavily Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) dependent.

The Intel Core i5 2.3 ghz 2415M used in the 13" MacBook Pro scores 2110 on CPU tests

The Intel Core i7 2.7 ghz 2620M scores 3913 for a 185% increase in performance.

The 13" i5 costs $1200, the 13" i7 costs $1500.

So for $300 more with the i7, one gets a computer that lasts almost twice as long. Better withstanding OS bloat upgrades, more powerful programs etc.

The 13" has poor integrated graphics, where the CPU handles the graphics and there is no GPU.

If one is going to choose the 13", it's better they get the i7 as they will get better graphics than the i5 as well.

Not as good as a dedicated graphics card in the 2.2 -2.3 Ghz 15" MacBook Pro, but slightly better.

As for the screen, thats user prefrence NOT it being better in terms of use and technical specs. I personally prefer the glossy screen myself as it looks much clearer than the matee screens i've used.

My anti-glare screen is a lot better in quality and detail than the 13" MacBook Pro's poor quality glossy ones, and I can see the entire screen in most condiitions.

It's why Apple charges slightly more for these screens, because they are better.

The 16Gb is totally not needed. 8GB is more than enough. Even the experts say 16GB is overkill.

The user has the choice to put UP TO 16GB, which later down the road is a substancial performance increasing option. Right now 16GB is a whopping $1500, 8GB can be had for a $100 or so at Crucial.

Its cheaper to buy the i5 and an ssd then to get the i7 with an ssd drive. So he needs to consider that too when buying his Mbp and not only technical specs.

The SSD isn't a performance "cure all" it's only fast storage.

It won't make a bit of difference how fast the storage is if the CPU (and the GPU) can't handle newer OS's and programs.

With the more powerful CPU and GPU up front, one can later make changes to increase the storage speed, they can't swtich out the CPU/GPU later on witout buying a new machine.

Spend $1200 and 2 years from now have to replace the machine.

Or spend $1500 and 4 years from now have to replace the machine due to a poor GPU.

Or spend $2200 and have a machine that will last 5 -7 years or longer with only a SSD and RAM upgrades.

I think the OP poster said they wanted a machine that lasted 4.5 years like the iMac?

Coming from a iMac with it's large screen and better graphics to a puny integrated graphics 13" MacBook Pro (more like a MacBook really) is going to be rather hard to swallow.

I also think that glare prone screen will become quite a pain in the arse after 4.5 years, and Apple is still selling anti-glare screens. (only the 15" and 17")

Seems the majority of people WANT anti-glare screens.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/05/23/glossy-vs-matte-screens-why-the-pc-indus trys-out-of-touch/

The i5 is a 2nd generation sandy bridge processor too. There should be no performance issues. Also, the i7 generates far more heat than the i5 -- which negates some its added performance from the extra cores. He did not say he was gaming either. Notebooks are not made for gaming anyways. if you want to game then get a desktop.

The SSD is not a cure all, correct. But the biggest bottle neck when it comes to performance is the hard drive.

An i5 with an ssd vs. i7 with hdd. The i5 will always outperforme the i7. The i7 with an hdd cannot even come close to matching the startup times of an i5 with ssd.

Also, i7 gets much hotter that the i5 and that will negate some of the additonal performance it provides with the extra cores.

What one user prefers is not what everyone will prefer. He needs to check out both types of screens for himself and see which he likes best. In this case too, technical specs cannot tell him which screen is better. Only his eyes can do that.

I would seriously question the quality of apple computers if you buy a computer from them that would, as you say, need replaced in 2 years.

Additionally, If the quality of these $1200 notebooks is as bad as you say it is then he might as well just save his money and get pc as there is not a pc notebook sold today that wont last, at least, 2 years.

ds store wrote:

jpcwa wrote:

I7 is better only in terms of it being a newer processor not speed as the i5 is more than fast enough for anyone not gaming.

i5 and i7 are Central Processing Untis (CPU's) and 3D games are heavily Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) dependent.

The Intel Core i5 2.3 ghz 2415M used in the 13" MacBook Pro scores 2110 on CPU tests

The Intel Core i7 2.7 ghz 2620M scores 3913 for a 185% increase in performance.

The 13" i5 costs $1200, the 13" i7 costs $1500.

So for $300 more with the i7, one gets a computer that lasts almost twice as long. Better withstanding OS bloat upgrades, more powerful programs etc.

The 13" has poor integrated graphics, where the CPU handles the graphics and there is no GPU.

If one is going to choose the 13", it's better they get the i7 as they will get better graphics than the i5 as well.

Not as good as a dedicated graphics card in the 2.2 -2.3 Ghz 15" MacBook Pro, but slightly better.

As for the screen, thats user prefrence NOT it being better in terms of use and technical specs. I personally prefer the glossy screen myself as it looks much clearer than the matee screens i've used.

My anti-glare screen is a lot better in quality and detail than the 13" MacBook Pro's poor quality glossy ones, and I can see the entire screen in most condiitions.

It's why Apple charges slightly more for these screens, because they are better.

The 16Gb is totally not needed. 8GB is more than enough. Even the experts say 16GB is overkill.

The user has the choice to put UP TO 16GB, which later down the road is a substancial performance increasing option. Right now 16GB is a whopping $1500, 8GB can be had for a $100 or so at Crucial.

Its cheaper to buy the i5 and an ssd then to get the i7 with an ssd drive. So he needs to consider that too when buying his Mbp and not only technical specs.

The SSD isn't a performance "cure all" it's only fast storage.

It won't make a bit of difference how fast the storage is if the CPU (and the GPU) can't handle newer OS's and programs.

With the more powerful CPU and GPU up front, one can later make changes to increase the storage speed, they can't swtich out the CPU/GPU later on witout buying a new machine.

Spend $1200 and 2 years from now have to replace the machine.

Or spend $1500 and 4 years from now have to replace the machine due to a poor GPU.

Or spend $2200 and have a machine that will last 5 -7 years or longer with only a SSD and RAM upgrades.

I think the OP poster said they wanted a machine that lasted 4.5 years like the iMac?

Coming from a iMac with it's large screen and better graphics to a puny integrated graphics 13" MacBook Pro (more like a MacBook really) is going to be rather hard to swallow.

I also think that glare prone screen will become quite a pain in the arse after 4.5 years, and Apple is still selling anti-glare screens. (only the 15" and 17")

Seems the majority of people WANT anti-glare screens.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/05/23/glossy-vs-matte-screens-why-the-pc-indus trys-out-of-touch/

The i5 is a 2nd generation sandy bridge processor too. There should be no performance issues. Also, the i7 generates far more heat than the i5 -- which negates some its added performance from the extra cores. He did not say he was gaming either. Notebooks are not made for gaming anyways. if you want to game then get a desktop.

The SSD is not a cure all, correct. But the biggest bottle neck when it comes to performance is the hard drive.

An i5 with an ssd vs. i7 with hdd. The i5 will always outperforme the i7. The i7 with an hdd cannot even come close to matching the startup times of an i5 with ssd.

Also, i7 gets much hotter that the i5 and that will negate some of the additonal performance it provides with the extra cores.

What one user prefers is not what everyone will prefer. He needs to check out both types of screens for himself and see which he likes best. In this case too, technical specs cannot tell him which screen is better. Only his eyes can do that.

I would seriously question the quality of apple computers if you buy a computer from them that would, as you say, need replaced in 2 years.

Additionally, If the quality of these $1200 notebooks is as bad as you say it is then he might as well just save his money and get pc as there is not a pc notebook sold today that wont last, at least, 2 years.

The i5 is a 2nd generation sandy bridge processor too. There should be no performance issues. Also, the i7 generates far more heat than the i5 -- which negates some its added performance from the extra cores. He did not say he was gaming either. Notebooks are not made for gaming anyways. if you want to game then get a desktop.

The SSD is not a cure all, correct. But the biggest bottle neck when it comes to performance is the hard drive.

An i5 with an ssd vs. i7 with hdd. The i5 will always outperforme the i7. The i7 with an hdd cannot even come close to matching the startup times of an i5 with ssd.

Also, i7 gets much hotter that the i5 and that will negate some of the additonal performance it provides with the extra cores.

What one user prefers is not what everyone will prefer. He needs to check out both types of screens for himself and see which he likes best. In this case too, technical specs cannot tell him which screen is better. Only his eyes can do that.

I would seriously question the quality of apple computers if you buy a computer from them that would, as you say, need replaced in 2 years.

Additionally, If the quality of these $1200 notebooks is as bad as you say it is then he might as well just save his money and get pc as there is not a pc notebook sold today that wont last, at least, 2 years.