What Does Apple Really Mean by 'Pro'?
News Commentary. How much difference is there between MacBook and MacBook Pro graphics performance? Apparently a whole lot for gaming, but not much for digital content usage. |
Gizmodo has benchmarked MacBook and MacBook Pro graphics. I really hate benchmarks because they often don't reflect real-world usage. But Gizmodo's MacBook and MacBook Pro comparisons are so eye-popping, they should be called out. But the differences diminish because of the compared systems.
Over the last couple weeks, more than a dozen people have asked me what's the real difference between MacBook and MacBook Pro. They were looking to buy one or the other. I've had a tough time answering. The screen is larger and there's FireWire, more memory and dual graphics on the Pro model. But the differences seem to be much less than with past Mac laptop iterations. If there's a seemingly meaningful difference, it would be graphics.
Part of the Pro versus non-Pro problem is marketing. During the notebook launch event, Apple CEO Steve Jobs spent some time touting the new NVIDIA 9400M graphics available in both laptop lines. He boasted about performance of the newer MacBook graphics being more than 80 percent of the older MacBook Pro graphics. He then revealed that newer MacBook Pros would have dual graphics, the 9400M and 9600 GT chips.
Gizmodo's benchmarks put some perspective on the differences. In testing Crysis:
Pretty gigantic gap in Crysis performance here. It's a bit more than the 50ish% difference tossed around a few weeks ago when describing the 9600 vs. the 9400, but that's also due to the faster CPU, more RAM and increased L2 cache found in the MacBook Pro.
But the differences are much less elsewhere:
Rendering a project in [Adobe] After Effects uses a little bit of GPU action, but not very much. The difference between 9400 and 9600 on the same MacBook Pro is only two seconds of render time on a nearly seven minute project. Negligible at best.
Gizmodo has done some great benchmarking, but I believe the chosen systems skew the results. The tech blog benchmarked the $1,599 MacBook against the $2,499 MacBook Pro. My real-world expectation: That buyers will be trying to choose between the high-end MacBook and low-end, $1,999 MacBook Pro. The high-end MacBook Pro has twice the memory, L2 cache and graphics memory of either the $1,599 or $1,999 models. Other than screen size, FireWire and dual graphics, there are few differences between the high-end MacBook and low-end MacBook Pro.
That Gizmodo found little difference running After Effects with 9400M and 9600 GT graphics on the same system is quite revealing. The 9400M can perform quite well for anyone working with digital content—and that makes the $1,599 MacBook a potentially good bargain for anyone other than gamers.
The NVIDIA graphics chip also comes on the newer MacBook Air, raising the notebook's stature as an affordable, thin-and-light graphics studio. For most MacBook buyers looking for Pro performance, it's these three laptops to consider first. Some recommendations, with the caveat that I haven't used all the systems yet:
- MacBook; $1,599, 13.3-inch display: This notebook is going to be good enough for most pros, unless they need a higher-resolution screen or FireWire. This is the notebook I would buy.
- MacBook Air; $1,799, 13.3-inch display: The previous Air was light and tough with superior display to other MacBooks. The 9400M graphics chip and 120GB hard drive should add enough brawn for completing tough photo or even video editing assignments.
- MacBook Pro; $1,999, 15.4-inch display: The real advantages over either of the other two models are bigger display, higher resolution, FireWire and an ExpressCard slot.
I consider all three of these notebooks as being Pro class, even with Air's slower CPU—1.6GHz versus 2.4GHz on the other two models. But the slower processor does have twice the L2 cache (6MB). Most people won't need to spend $2,499 for the high-end MacBook Pro, methinks. I wouldn't recommend the $2,799, 17-inch MacBook Pro until Apple updates the laptop.
If you're looking for a new Mac notebook, some online dealers offer better deals than buying from Apple. Last week, a friend of mine was going to buy a high-end MacBook from Apple, but saved tax and got a $100 rebate through PC Connection instead.
[Please send your tips or rumors to watchtips at live.com].
Comments (8)
Unfortunately for me, I am one of those with a considerable investment in Firewire equipment. I also need a small foot print (I'm still using my aging Powerbook 12"). Looks like I'm in the market for a white Mac Book. Too bad they have the less desirable intel integrated graphics.
Posted by Marcos El Malo | October 30, 2008 2:19 PM
One of the differences between Macs and PCs is that, in the Mac world, hardware advances sometimes precede software advances ("if you build it, they will come"). Benchmarking new systems using old software only tells part of the story.
In the past, Apple hardware sometimes didn't get enough support from third party software developers. When Microsoft released Windows 95, many Mac developers became more interested in achieving cross-platform portability than in exploiting the Mac advantages.
That could change now. 1) The computer software market is maturing. One way to differentiate products in a mature market is to ad unique features. 2) Mac market share is approaching the point where developers are willing to develop Mac only software. 3) The iPhone market provides examples of developers successfully marketing "iPhone only" software. It also is introducing the Mac OS and its SDK to many more developers.
One more thing... Macs have longer useful lives than PCs, partly because the hardware anticipates software advances. It's a safe bet that some new software will be developed that exploits the multi-touch interface. I'd be willing to bet that some software (besides games) will be developed to take advantage of the "Pro" graphics.
In fact, I'll bet that "Snow Leopard" will include the ability to use both graphic cards at once. Connsider that may WWDC '09 prediction.
Posted by Steve W | October 30, 2008 7:18 PM
Pro for Apple means "pro bucks". If you're gonna walk around calling yourself a Pro, then baby, you'd better spend money like a Pro. Surely a REAL professional can ante up the extra amount and why shouldn't they since they money should be rolling in. If you want to play with the big boys then pay with the big boys.
I'm not a pro and I wouldn't even consider buying a MacBook. A MacBook Pro is as low a model as I want to go.
Posted by Constable Odo | October 30, 2008 8:05 PM
I agree with your assessment, and put my money where my mouth is by buying the MB. But I took it a step further: I got mine with 4GB RAM and the 320GB drive.
It's still $150 less than the entry MBP, but will likely benchmark faster in everything but intense games. It's also smaller and a pound lighter.
The 9600M GT is a fine chip, but the fact is the 9400M has so much of its performance that there's little between them most of the time.
Mind you, the normal price delta between the two is $400, and you get the bigger screen (and better too, it is a higher-quality display), Firewire 800, Express card, and the all-out graphics. That's actually not bad for $400. For me, I simply didn't want the extra size and weight it brings.
Posted by Tom | October 30, 2008 8:34 PM
I know the diferences now are smaller, but think about the advantages of having larger display with bigger resolution. That makes a lot of difference, if you consider that the weight is about the same. The battery is also better. And for sure if you make use of a heavy graphics app, it will make a lot of difference, especially if your using more apps at the same time. Probably encoding will also be faster.
But what Apple is doing is pushing the efforts to the MacBook, especially for holliday season. Thats the notebook that sells more and is to rise Apple sales and grow Mac OS market. I think the time is to buy the MacBook, although I find the MacBook Pro better and as I don`t use a secondary display it makes a huge difference for me. But I think we will see some increases in the "Pro" line.
Posted by Lucas Arruda | October 31, 2008 1:27 AM
Adobe software, including all CS4, is not optimized to use the GPU with the CPU. All of this will change, although Adobe will likely lag, as it did with optimizing for Macs with Intel processors. Software will be built to use the GPU. Snow Leopard will use the GPU, even upgrades to Leopard will incorporate more GPU use. The difference with the Pro and regular MacBook is that the MacBook Pro will grow into this new direction Apple is embarking upon and the MacBook will not. That said, the MacBook is a great computer, but it isn't Pro. Those who think that this is Apple Cool Aide likely don't use Macs or have no clue which way Apple is planning to further distinguish itself from PCs running Windows. The use of GPU and CPU to share the heavy lifting separates Pro macs further from mid and high end PCs running Vista or Majave or Windows 7. It is also likely to make "Windows Whatever" run better on a Mac or at the very least demonstrate the difference between the operating systems. This is the reason Apple is not making its operating system available to Windows PCs. It's all about setting a new standard.
Posted by Michael | October 31, 2008 3:54 AM
If you check out the Apple forums there definitely seems to be a difference in LCD quality between MB and MBP, the MBP being significantly better. This would possibly be a deal breaker for a "pro" user.
Posted by John Manning | October 31, 2008 3:54 AM
It is, for me too, the extra size and weight of the pro that makes it difficult to choose between the MacBooks. Even though the 9400m is no slouch, the screen on the MBP is higher in quality, with richer colors and intense clarity. Also, a 7,200 RPM drive is available on the pro. If the pro hardware was available as a high end option in the smaller model... whew. That would be delicious.
Posted by Sean | October 31, 2008 8:58 AM