15" MBP - 2008 or 2009?

[Mac+]

From another thread...
Looks fine to me.

I just picked up last Fall's $1999 MBP for $1349 from the Apple refurb store. I was hoping Apple would drop the price from $1699 to $1499 when the new models came out. Never thought they'd drop to $1349 on day 1 *stoked*. :DI'm thinking of going the same route but wanted to discuss the differences to make sure I've covered the bases.

I presume I'm discussing the same model bpMF is talking about. If not, then this comparison may need to be altered.

2008 15" MBP - base model - 2.4GHz/2GB RAM/250GB HD/with both the 9400M+9600M GT graphics cards - AU$3199... now AU$2390! :eek:
2009 15" MBP - base model - 2.53GHz/4GB RAM/250GB HD/9400M graphics card only - AU$2699

2009 Pros
.13GHz speed increase (5.42% - no big deal)
double the RAM (can do that myself)
non-user replaceable battery for up to 7 hours (I keep my machines so being able to swap the battery may actually prove to be a benefit.)
improved screen (60% better colour gamut)
SD card slot

2008 Pros
replaceable battery
added graphics card
Express Card/34 slot

Aside from wanting to use this at work (bring on Snow Leopard with Exchange support built in) my main use at home will be getting back into music (DP) and photography (Aperture) - so I'm not sure whether the second graphics chip on the 2008 model will be of more value to me than the improved screen on the 2009 model. I do intend to add an external monitor at some point down the track - probably the 24" LED Cinema Display.

I have no idea what I'll use the Express Card/34 slot for but, then again, I'm not sure I would have been using the SD slot either. :\

What do you guys think - which way should the dollars fall?
(Extra question: I heard the MBP unibody models had a screen update - how can you tell if you have a model with the updated screen?)

[Dorian Gray]

For Aperture, this is a tricky choice. I don't own Aperture but it seems to benefit from fast computers in general and a good graphics card. On the other hand, photography would also benefit from a greater colour gamut. With Snow Leopard's OpenCL (http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/technology/#opencl) tech you might find yourself wishing you had something faster than the 9400M in a couple of years.

But the 9400M is pretty attractive now, with its power efficiency and decent speed (at least half the speed of the 9600 M GT?). And who knows what tech will appear in a couple of years. There's a chance that the MacBook Pro will have USB 3.0 and/or FireWire 3200, Blu-ray and a 32 nm Nehalem-based CPU in less than two years. Do you want to risk spending a lot of money for a machine that's nice now but might not last as long as we expect a MacBook Pro to normally last?

For that reason I personally find the 13-inch MacBook Pro an attractive choice. A nice machine now, but less expensive and therefore easier to replace in two years if significant developments change expectations.

That said, no matter what tech is on the horizon there comes a point when buying now makes more sense than not. Otherwise you end up still using a PowerBook in mid-2009, like some fools here. ;)

[scratt]

The difference in real terms between the 9600M and the 9400M is about 15%. I know on pure tech specs it would appear more, but it really doesn't work out that way in real world usage.

Frankly I have been blown away by how good the 9400 is. To the extent that the 9600 second GPU in the 17" and 15" is a bit of a let down.

However, overall I'd still go with the 2009 machine. Dorian touched on it. I am hopeful that with the advent of Snow Leopard we'll see the dual GPU machines actually get to use both GPUs side by side. If that is the case then the dual GPU machines will be less of a relative disappointment. And at the end of the day even with only one GPU enabled the difference in GPU performance when you turn on the 9600 is far more significant than the percentage you are worrying over with the CPUs in the '80 / '09 machines.

If it doesn't then I am sure someone will haxie it eventually, and the extra features on the 2009 model are still worth it IMO.

I also think you'll get a lot more use out of an SD card slot than the Express Card Slot. I know nothing about it's actual implementation, but there are a lot of cool things an SD slot can do apart from stick camera cards in them...

:eek: I misread... Have they really pulled the dual GPU option out of the 15"?

Heck get the older one!

EDIT : Ahh. Ok. They've taken it out of the base model only. That's slightly less worrying. Like I was saying above I am still hopeful that we'll get to unlock the dual GPU goodness at some point. Had Apple cut it out entirely I would be almost certain that it would never come in Snow Leopard. The fact that it remains in quite a few models gives me some hope...

I would definitely go for the 2008 model if your only other option is the base 2009 15".

[chucker]

:eek: I misread... Have they really pulled the dual GPU option out of the 15"?

Only for the low-end $1699 model.

[Capella]

I'd get the older model, personally. Replaceable battery and the dual-mode GPU sound like better deals to me.

[Swox]

I'd get the older model, personally. Replaceable battery and the dual-mode GPU sound like better deals to me.

Me too.

[PB PM]

It is hard to say whether the GPU is that important for the type of apps you want to use. The 9400M is said to be as powerful as the older ATI1600 (dedicated GPU) in my MBP (first gen C2D 2.16Ghz model) and it runs Aperture 2 just fine. Having a lot of RAM (4GB+) is a far bigger priority with programs like Aperture, than the CPU or GPU. In fact the GPU hardly even warms up in Aperture. Personally I'd go for the newer machine, due to the fact that you can put a ton (up to 8GB) of RAM in there. I'm not sure of the limit of the last gen model though. To me an improved screen and battery life is worth far more than the difference in the GPU, even with OpenCL.

[Mac+]

Thanks everyone for your responses.

Apologies for not replying until now - work has taken me intersate and seems to be consuming my life at times. :| I do look forward to providing an update later in the year though. :)

For Aperture, this is a tricky choice. I don't own Aperture but it seems to benefit from fast computers in general and a good graphics card. On the other hand, photography would also benefit from a greater colour gamut. With Snow Leopard's OpenCL (http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/technology/#opencl) tech you might find yourself wishing you had something faster than the 9400M in a couple of years.That's why I was considering the 2008 model. :)

But the 9400M is pretty attractive now, with its power efficiency and decent speed (at least half the speed of the 9600 M GT?). And who knows what tech will appear in a couple of years. There's a chance that the MacBook Pro will have USB 3.0 and/or FireWire 3200, Blu-ray and a 32 nm Nehalem-based CPU in less than two years. Do you want to risk spending a lot of money for a machine that's nice now but might not last as long as we expect a MacBook Pro to normally last?There will always be this risk with buying computers, but I know going into a purchase on close-out stock that I'm not at the penultimate stage before a "big thing" change, so the potential of "I should have waited" pain won't be as sharp. ;) Also, it's not a lot of money, considering the price points of where it was and where the other dual GPU 15" MBPs sit. The 2008 model currently represents good value.

For that reason I personally find the 13-inch MacBook Pro an attractive choice. A nice machine now, but less expensive and therefore easier to replace in two years if significant developments change expectations.Even though I intend to purchase an external display at some point, I personally find the 13" screen too limiting. My wife has the 12"PB and whilst I love the form factor, I only use it for browsing the web. I find the small screen size too restrictive for writing research papers and producing wireframes... as for photography, no way. :no:

That said, no matter what tech is on the horizon there comes a point when buying now makes more sense than not. Otherwise you end up still using a PowerBook in mid-2009, like some fools here. ;)Yes, I think I have waited long enough. The iPhone has been my Mac/OS X computing experience for the past year and now that I'm settled at home it is time to set myself up again.

The difference in real terms between the 9600M and the 9400M is about 15%. I know on pure tech specs it would appear more, but it really doesn't work out that way in real world usage.

Frankly I have been blown away by how good the 9400 is. To the extent that the 9600 second GPU in the 17" and 15" is a bit of a let down.

However, overall I'd still go with the 2009 machine. Dorian touched on it. I am hopeful that with the advent of Snow Leopard we'll see the dual GPU machines actually get to use both GPUs side by side. If that is the case then the dual GPU machines will be less of a relative disappointment. And at the end of the day even with only one GPU enabled the difference in GPU performance when you turn on the 9600 is far more significant than the percentage you are worrying over with the CPUs in the '80 / '09 machines.

If it doesn't then I am sure someone will haxie it eventually, and the extra features on the 2009 model are still worth it IMO.

I also think you'll get a lot more use out of an SD card slot than the Express Card Slot. I know nothing about it's actual implementation, but there are a lot of cool things an SD slot can do apart from stick camera cards in them...

:eek: I misread... Have they really pulled the dual GPU option out of the 15"?

Heck get the older one!

EDIT : Ahh. Ok. They've taken it out of the base model only. That's slightly less worrying. Like I was saying above I am still hopeful that we'll get to unlock the dual GPU goodness at some point. Had Apple cut it out entirely I would be almost certain that it would never come in Snow Leopard. The fact that it remains in quite a few models gives me some hope...

I would definitely go for the 2008 model if your only other option is the base 2009 15".Cheers scratt- appreciate the considered response. :)

It is hard to say whether the GPU is that important for the type of apps you want to use. The 9400M is said to be as powerful as the older ATI1600 (dedicated GPU) in my MBP (first gen C2D 2.16Ghz model) and it runs Aperture 2 just fine. Having a lot of RAM (4GB+) is a far bigger priority with programs like Aperture, than the CPU or GPU. In fact the GPU hardly even warms up in Aperture. Personally I'd go for the newer machine, due to the fact that you can put a ton (up to 8GB) of RAM in there. I'm not sure of the limit of the last gen model though. To me an improved screen and battery life is worth far more than the difference in the GPU, even with OpenCL.Thanks PBPM. Re: RAM - I believe the 2008 model will "see" up to 6GB RAM but, in all honesty, the specified limit of 4GB sounds like heaps to me, should I choose to upgrade at some point. I am also on the fence about the improved screen and will try to see both models side by side this week to make a better informed decision.

I'd get the older model, personally. Replaceable battery and the dual-mode GPU sound like better deals to me.Thanks Capella - the value for money is definitely in the close-out price of the older model. I was told that the battery replacement for a newer MBP requires a visit to the Genius Bar and I'd prefer just to swap them out when needed.

Me too.Thanks Swox.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Well, you already quoted me in your original post, but I'm still quite happy with my purchase. I get both GPUs (which is almost more important than CPUs nowadays), a removable battery and the EC/34 slot which will allow me to upgrade to USB3 if necessary as well as a CF reader since my camera doesn't use SD cards.

It is my understanding the 13" MB(P) received the screen upgrade. This is a good thing as when I was checking out the MB vs. MBP last Fall when they first came out, the 13" LED was noticeably crappier than the 15" display.

Just to be clear, I bought the Late 2008 base model listed in your post - 2.4GHz/2GB/250GB HDD.

[Maciej]

The only downside to the model we have bassplayinMacFiend (I have a late 2008 as well) is that we can't upgrade beyond 4 GB, or 6 GB according to OWC. IRT Ram.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

The only downside to the model we have bassplayinMacFiend (I have a late 2008 as well) is that we can't upgrade beyond 4 GB, or 6 GB according to OWC. IRT Ram.

All 3 of my Apples have 2GB RAM installed and I haven't had any paging issues so I'm not too worried about the max RAM limitation, but it could definitely be an issue for some people. I feel comfortable knowing I could go to 4 or even 6 if necessary but I don't think it will be for my uses.

It is definitely an important point to bring up. Also important is you'll need to buy > base model if you want 6MB on-chip cache. The new base model's 2.53GHz is of the 3MB cache variety, not the 6MB cache variety of last Fall's 2.53GHz model.

[Maciej]

It is definitely an important point to bring up. Also important is you'll need to buy > base model if you want 6MB on-chip cache. The new base model's 2.53GHz is of the 3MB cache variety, not the 6MB cache variety of last Fall's 2.53GHz model.

I hadn't realized that. Cool, I'm feeling even better about my laptop now. Haha

[Dorian Gray]

Hi Mac+,

If you haven't already made a decision, consider Rob Galbraith's review (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10041-10146) of the new MacBook Pro displays. I trust his views on these matters. He finds the new displays to be a significant improvement over the previous MBP displays in terms of colour gamut and hue accuracy. In fact they represent the state of the art in notebook displays, being roughly equal to the twin-backlight display of the massive and expensive ThinkPad W700.

This is a strong upgrade from the previous MacBook Pro displays (the first unibody models), which Rob Galbraith found to be barely adequate for colour-critical work. The remaining fly in the ointment is the glossy-only options for the 13- and 15-inch models. At home you can adjust the position of your computer and lamps to mitigate this, but it's another matter in the field.

Another point you might note is that Rob Galbraith thinks the 9400M graphics are perfectly usable for Aperture, albeit slower than the 9600M GT (but by less than he expected: a common observation when comparing the 9400M to GPUs with dedicated memory).

Another interesting thing about the new MacBook Pros is that the SD memory card slot seems to support enhanced transfer rates with SanDisk's fastest SD cards: faster in fact than SanDisk's own high-speed USB reader. It's becoming clear to me that SD is slowly replacing CompactFlash, even at the high end of the market (e.g. the rumoured Nikon D300s has a slot for both SD and CF), so this might be a point to consider if you ever buy a DSLR. ;)

[Dorian Gray]

Bump. Just being super-nosey here. Did you make a decision one way or the other? :)

[Mac+]

Hi DG,

The answer to your question is yes, I did finally make a decision. In fact, last Friday I took delivery of a late 2008 15" MBP... still to be unpacked though.

I was actually all set to purchase it last month, but your link to the Galbraith write up had me mulling over it again. The quality of the screen in the new models is a marked improvement, but I rationalised myself away from them since I'd also be purchasing a Cinema Display in the future.

That, and the fact, that I believe when Canon finally release a full frame DSLR that appeals to me, that CF card slot will come in handy. ;)

[Dorian Gray]

Thanks for indulging me. :) It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. With your choice you get the fast graphics card for Snow Leopard's OpenCL goodness. Enjoy!

[Dorian Gray]

Not to keep this thread going on forever, but did you notice that Apple have just introduced a matte display option for the 15-inch model? $50.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Not to keep this thread going on forever, but did you notice that Apple have just introduced a matte display option for the 15-inch model? $50.

Is that what changed on the order screen? I couldn't tell because it was partially blocked by my reflection on the screen. :p

[jcoley2]

Me too.

Isn't the whole point of the new non-replaceable battery that since they do not have make it removable, it will last significantly longer? I would think that alone would overrule the older model.