Jobs: Better Graphics and Battery Life Beat 10-20% CPU Increase in New 13-Inch MacBook Pros

It’s Friday and we’re all a little tired. Luckily, a surprisingly vociferous Steve Jobs has been taking to his iPad email client a lot lately to entertain us.

His latest missive? Explaining the rationale behind leaving the 13-inch MacBook Pros behind the Core i3i5 15 and 17-inchers with comparatively wimpy Core 2 Duo processors.

9to5Mac Reader DJ wrote this letter to Steve Jobs:

Hey Steve,
I was really looking forward to a Core i3 or i5 13’ MacBook Pro. Any chance you can explain why you stuck with the Core 2 Duo?

Jobs’ response:

DON'T MISS
Ars Technica Explains Why 13-Inch MacBook Pros Don’t Have Arrendale CPUs
Far faster graphics and 10 hour battery life trump 10-20% CPU

I’d tend to agree, but I think the problem here is the choice of classifying the 13-inchers as MacBook Pros. People expect maximum performance in MacBook Pros, not maximum battery life. I know a few people who been disappointed by the 13-inchers small speed bump, and I think it has a lot to do with how they are branded, not their actual specs.

What about you? Are you disappointed with the new 13-inch MBPs? Tell usin the comments.

17 comments »

About the author

John Brownlee is news editor here at Cult of Mac, and has also written about a lot of things for a lot of different places, including Wired, Playboy, Boing Boing, Popular Mechanics, Gizmodo, Kotaku, Lifehacker, AMC, Geek and the Consumerist. He lives in Cambridge with his charming inamorata and a tiny budgerigar punningly christened after Nabokov's most famous pervert. You can follow him here on Twitter.

(sorry, you need Javascript to see this e-mail address)| Read more posts by John Brownlee.

Posted in Macbook, MacBook Pro, News, Steve Jobs |

http://www.pendleproducts.com martin_tf
I’d agree with him. I can’t think of anytime that I would need a 10% faster processor but lots of times an extra hour of battery would have been nice.
namhar
just disappointed because they don’t come in a matte finish :-(
Nick Rich
I’m disappointed, though I’m not sure if I should be. What I haven’t decided yet is whether it’s worth considering a 15″ to get the i5 processor. How much slower would the 13″ be? I’m not to bothered about the battery life difference.
By the way, the 15″ DOES have a matte screen option.
161
Faster, why? They are already incredible fast. Better make em matte.
Rusty
I love my 13″ Mac Book Pro, but it does get bogged down pretty easily when I am working in certain apps like Lightroom or if I am doing a lot of multitasking.
Mike
I would have upgraded if 13″ had i5 or i7 processor
namhar
would have upgraded to 13″ from my 2009 13″ if they had a matte finish. will probably upgrade to the 15″ matte when the next round comes out. Does anyone know when the next round will be out, because they usually come out a few months later with some fixes.
Paul
i would have definitely got a 13″ macbook pro if it had an i5…. or atleast an i3 processor
Andrew
I found the original unibodies were OK with VMWare, Aperture and Office 2008 so I’m not crying about no processor bump. I went to a 15″ to get a matte screen though and I’d come back to 13″ if they would only offer it at the bottom of the range too. Perhaps with a higher res screen too …?
Maccer
13″ MBP are branded to be ‘pro computers for ordinary people’. Real professionals would buy the 15″ or 17″ macbook pro.
If the cpu of the 13″ model would have been changed, the price would be higher.
I kinda like the 13″ model because it’s affordable and portable. As it’s supposed to be.
Simon
Bloody right I’m disappointed! If the Macbook Pro’s are all part of the same ‘family’ as Apple puts it then most of the baseline specs should be the same across the board i.e – processor type; screen options, etc, otherwise what is the 13″ MBP? Its like a tweaked Macbook with a Firewire port but that’s not enough to make it a ‘Pro’! As a photographer who often has to carry a Mac on my back all day and file to deadlines I like a small form factor as the less weight and bulk the better, but not at the cost of the horrid glossy screen and meagre processor upgrade. I think its quite cynical of Apple to make the differentiations across the MBP’s just to try and force you to buy the 15 or 17″ because the specs are proper. Just my two-penneth!
Sweetseater
The previous version with a slower processor was a Pro version and now this one with a faster processor isn’t because the other two models use different ones?
And really, this had more to do with price. People buying 13 are more likely to get because it’s small and portable hence the importance of battery-life. I appreciate grabbing the laptop and not the power adapter. In six months when the i3s and i5s come down in price they will arrive. It doesn’t help that Intel named these processors connected to Apple’s laptop size monikers and then didn’t price it so they can deliver.
IcyFog
I’m not disappointed with the lack of speed upgrade. I’m disappointed I still can’t buy a 13-inch MBP with a matte screen.
SheiknetChris
I know I am a little late to this party, but I will put in my 2 cents:
Because of the lawsuit Intel has against Nvidia on chipset integration, there (I believe) are roadblocks keeping Nvidia from pairing their newer integrated chips with any of the new Intel processors.
Because the Nvidia chips in the 15 and 17 are discrete GPUs and not integrated chipsets, they are except from the charges Intel have filed. If you notice the cost of the base 15″ went up $200. I would have rather not seen that on the base 13″ MBP, and it could be there isn’t room for a whole GPU and memory in the chassis.
mattmattmatt
Every decision Apple and Jobs makes is the right decision, even if we don’t like everything about it. $1200 for one of the best laptops ever made is a dang good deal. My wife is still using a 12″ Powerbook… 6 years after I bought it. If I were getting a laptop today, the 13″ MBP would be it. And I’ll still be using it in 6 years time.
Solo500
Yeah, well we all want a MB Air that can do DV, has a matte screen runs for 24 hrs a day & costs $500. Oh yeah, that has every kind of port including SCSI and floppy drive. Uncle Steve is right this time.
@Simon, I feel your pain as far as the need for a lean portable production machine. The lil Macbook is not pro, alas. But it’s Good Enough. I am schlepping last gen 15″ & it’s a backpack breaker.
Charles
Hey Steve,
I was really looking forward to a higher-resolution antiglare 13′ MacBook Pro. Any chance you can explain why you stuck with a 1280×800 glossy-only LCD?